Subversion in Writing

[Homer Potvin]

I read Mice when I was 11.

I'm looking for it now. The set are all leatherbound, signed, first edition copies with the gold flaking on the pages and the tassle bookmarks built in. My grandmother was an avid collector of stuff like this and probably saw it on TV, like the Franklin Mint things from back in the day. She drank herself to death in 1985, but that's not the books' fault. I think there's 50 or 60 of them scattered all over my house. Everything from Gore Vidal to Dante to Heller to Bradbury to Elmer Fudd for all I know.

And just pickup up a random one, it is from the Franklin Library, which I assume is associated with the Franklin Mint. Call today! Supplies are limited!

 

[Trish]

I'm looking for it now. The set are all leatherbound, signed, first edition copies with the gold flaking on the pages and the tassle bookmarks built in. My grandmother was an avid collector of stuff like this and probably saw it on TV, like the Franklin Mint things from back in the day. She drank herself to death in 1985, but that's not the books' fault. I think there's 50 or 60 of them scattered all over my house. Everything from Gore Vidal to Dante to Heller to Bradbury to Elmer Fudd for all I know.

And just pickup up a random one, it is from the Franklin Library, which I assume is associated with the Franklin Mint. Call today! Supplies are limited!

My grandmother had so many things from the Franklin Mint lol. No leather bound books unfortunately. I would have liked those.

 

[Naomasa298]

I read it in school. It didn't grab my attention, but very little of what I read in school did. Especially not Lord of the Flies.

 

[Naomasa298]

I remember the Franklin Mint from those ads in Reader's Digest.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

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?

At last, a book list that is composed of things I've actually read, bar The Handmaid's Tale (which I have on the shelf but some of you lot haven't sold it as something to read right now) and The Wizard of Oz (I know there a book but still...there's a book?).

I must say, I'd not have considered most of these subversive. Often brilliant, and challenging, and sit you down perceptive, but subversive? Not so much but that might because several have been around longer than me. They've always been there, they hold wisdom, a whole bunch of must reads but each presents a world view that, if not mainstream, had some traction in their day.

To discuss what subversive might mean in this context, I think there's need for an object to that sentence. Subversvise of genre expectations is very different to underground political statements which is also different to challenging personal perceptions of reality. Add more categories as required.

There was a time in Ireland when poets disguised nationalist proclamations by personifiying the country as a love interest, often named Róisín Dubh (Little Black Rose), which allowed a coded protest against British rule. There's good reason why regimes target the writers and other artists when they try to subjugate a population.

Of those writers who really meet subversive content, I'd be looking at Kafka, Camus, Toni Morrison (particularly in The Bluest Eye), Beckett. I don't know that any of them were rallying a call to action. More they had the skill and perception to make the reader radically rethink their own perceptions by presenting theirs without apology or conformity.

 

[Homer Potvin]

My grandmother had so many things from the Franklin Mint lol. No leather bound books unfortunately. I would have liked those.

Hmm. Maybe I was thinking of John Updike... there's two of those so far. Also something by Anthony Burgess that isn't A Clockwork Orange... I should probably check that out.

Subversvise of genre expectations is very different to underground political statements which is also different to challenging personal perceptions of reality.

Yeah, we hopped on that on from the git. Two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Toni Morrison (particularly in The Bluest Eye)

The 3rd most banned book of 2022 according to Google. If we cover our eyes long enough, we can pretend it doesn't exist. Like all the other bad things in life!

There's good reason why regimes target the writers and other artists when they try to subjugate a population.

Intelligentsia is #1 after rival political factions. Page two of the Nazi handbook.

I must say, I'd not have considered most of these subversive. Often brilliant, and challenging, and sit you down perceptive, but subversive? Not so much but that might because several have been around longer than me. They've always been there, they hold wisdom, a whole bunch of must reads but each presents a world view that, if not mainstream, had some traction in their day.

I think the Internet has thrown a Venn Diagram around everything these days. There was a time when only a few select examples were considered for academic discussion. Now everything gets lumped somewhere. Not necessarily incorrectly or inappropriately, but just by virtue of their being space to fill, the rooms tend to get cluttered.

 

[JLT]

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

You really should. It's one of those movies, like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly or Testament, that I'm glad I saw but probably wouldn't want to see very often.

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.

The most entertaining write-up of that theory is by Cecil Adams and can be found here:

Is The Wizard of Oz a satire of the French Revolution?

www.straightdope.com

(Note: Cecil is highly addicting, and going through his writing is sure to plunge you into a rabbit hole.)

If you're talking about subversive literature, probably the most subversive novel in American history was Uncle Tom's Cabin. When Lincoln met Ms. Stowe at the White House during the Civil War, he's supposed to have said, "Well, so you're the little lady who started the war."

 

[Homer Potvin]

You really should. It's one of those movies, like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly or Testament, that I'm glad I saw but probably wouldn't want to see very often.

Haven't seen those either.

 

[Stuart Dren]

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?

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

Nice, some agreement here.

So speculative fiction, if all in literal terms, is too overt? E.g. you could call Animal Farm a cautionary tale too, but at least it's wrapped in allegory, so it could still be subversive?

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

Fahrenheit 451... definitely.

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.

I'm struggling to see Fahrenheit 451 as subtle, even compared to the Handmaiden's Tale.

If I asked a feminist if Handmaiden's tale was subversive, what do you think she/he would tell me?

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.

I don't know. I see a deep enough criticism as an implied suggestion for radical change.


Over all, I think I'm seeing why I'm having a hard time defining it. It seems like such a qualitative judgement, more subjective that I had thought going into this.

 

[Stuart Dren]

and The Wizard of Oz (I know there a book but still...there's a book?).

I used the word 'stories' partially because I think a lot more people have seen the movie Fight Club than have read Chuck's book.

I must say, I'd not have considered most of these subversive. Often brilliant, and challenging, and sit you down perceptive, but subversive? Not so much but that might because several have been around longer than me. They've always been there, they hold wisdom, a whole bunch of must reads but each presents a world view that, if not mainstream, had some traction in their day.

Yeah, some traction. Riding or making the wave?

So then we get into: does it have to subvert the populous or merely the state's zeitgeist (the latter of which sort of indicated by Potvin above re: his response to my allegation of All Quiet on the Western Front). I don't think that's been made clear. Or maybe everyone agrees that it could be either/or?

 

[Louanne Learning]

So speculative fiction, if all in literal terms, is too overt?

he Handmaiden's Tale.

If we are going to call literature subversion, it implies the question - "What is the author trying to subvert?"

I think the Handmaid's Tale is more of a dystopian vision than a subversion. To me, it wasn't grounded in reality. It's been many years since I read it, (and now in some places the rights of women are being threatened) but I thought the story was ludicrous and it did not accurately capture the full humanity of either men nor women. All the men were dicks, and all the women were bitter hags, uteruses or whores.

The entire book is made up of Offred's thoughts, and I found her quite tedious (I didn't watch the TV adaption so don't know if they gave Offred some personality in the film version). I didn't like the portrayal of her in the book as the "natural-born-victim." Women may be victims of their circumstances, but they are not victims of their sex.

Um, going out on a limb here, but if anything was subverted in that book it was the courage of women like Malala Yousafzai, Queen Medb of Connaught, Viking shield-maidens, Artemesia, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Mohawk Clan Matrons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, and Tina Fey, who said, “Bitches get things done.”

 

[DLC]

Where's that meme of female engineers studying sandwich blueprints, could use it right now.

 

[Trish]

If we are going to call literature subversion, it implies the question - "What is the author trying to subvert?"

I think the Handmaid's Tale is more of a dystopian vision than a subversion. To me, it wasn't grounded in reality. It's been many years since I read it, (and now in some places the rights of women are being threatened) but I thought the story was ludicrous and it did not accurately capture the full humanity of either men nor women. All the men were dicks, and all the women were bitter hags, uteruses or whores.

The entire book is made up of Offred's thoughts, and I found her quite tedious (I didn't watch the TV adaption so don't know if they gave Offred some personality in the film version). I didn't like the portrayal of her in the book as the "natural-born-victim." Women may be victims of their circumstances, but they are not victims of their sex.

Um, going out on a limb here, but if anything was subverted in that book it was the courage of women like Malala Yousafzai, Queen Medb of Connaught, Viking shield-maidens, Artemesia, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Mohawk Clan Matrons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, and Tina Fey, who said, “Bitches get things done.”

Respectfully - I think you missed the point. Entirely.

 

[Homer Potvin]

So speculative fiction, if all in literal terms, is too overt? E.g. you could call Animal Farm a cautionary tale too, but at least it's wrapped in allegory, so it could still be subversive?

No, speculative fiction is great for subversion, but Handmaid's Tale is really out there. Not sure if you've read it before (it's definitely worth it), but like Louanne said, it's borderline preposterous. Like, the themes and warnings it presents are definitely relevant, and it does point to a system that deservers undermining, but the actual mechanics aren't terribly realistic. And it's more of a proscriptive story than a cautionary one, if that makes any sense, in that the story believes the premise is a possible outcome. It's also really overt. Animal Farm, on the other hand, doesn't pretend as if the premise could actually happen and is sooooooo ridiculous, it's actually poignant. You also have to deliberately look for the meaning in Animal Farm where's Atwood's message is dead on the nose.

In your face is not subversive. To me, it always has to have that "sub," underneath part that you can't see from the surface.

Fahrenheit 451 is out there too, yes, and the message isn't very difficult to parse, but there's a lot of glee in its characters and enthusiasm for their situation. It's as if there's nothing wrong and no system in play that requires a rethinking. Handmaid's has none of that. I guess 451 might only be a medium on the subversive scale. It's a pretty wide spectrum.

 

[Naomasa298]

Viking shield-maidens

They weren't real. Neither was Medb.

 

[Naomasa298]

I don't know. I see a deep enough criticism as an implied suggestion for radical change.

Again, only if you accept the theory that it's an allegory. There's no evidence that it is.

 

[Luxuria]

The Wizard of Oz

Okay, so let me put in my two cents. I don't know the whole Political allegory thing, but I would argue it is still a subversive work in itself. Because in most fairy tales before this, which I don't know the names of, but this was a first case of 'girl travels' to another world that is REAL. Not made up like Alice in Wonderland. I think at the end of Alice, she wakes up and realizes it is all a dream. Not so with the Wizard, for Dorothy is really there and returns home after. (For story purposes, I looked up how long Dorothy was in Oz and someone estimated over a month in the first book). Also, Dorothy, unlike Alice, is not just a tourist. She defends Toto against the Cowardly Lion, hitting him on the nose, gets mad at the Wizard for stalling on his promises and overall, plays a huge role in the story. Things happen because she makes them happen- Alice from when I read it ages ago, was just lead on a weird adventure.

Also, Oz has adults in the story who are kind, or deceiving. Sure, Peter Pan that according to google, was written later, has adults. But in Oz, you have the 4 witches who are powerful women, the Wizard who is a fraud and the Tin Woodman who was going to marry a munchkin woman before he was turned into tin. Not many fairy tales can boast to having a cast of adults who actually help the character, not just stand in for 'I hate my dad or mom'. These adults are helpful and guide Dorothy on her journey and I think that is part of what makes it unique.

Not to mention that Oz is a real place in the book. It's not a fantasy land of dreams or rabbit holes. It EXISTS in our world and has diplomatic relations with the other fairy countries around it. So, I think this sets it apart from other fairy tales and therefore is subversive in its own way.

I love the Oz Series.

 

[Luxuria]

What are the witches and the flying monkeys?

Okay, if we are going down this road, I will say that the Wicked Witch of the West is about the evils of slavery. Because she owns the Golden Cap that she can use to call upon the flying monkeys 3 times. The first time she called them, she drove the Wizard from the West. Second time, she used the Monkeys to enslave the Winkies. Third, she used the Monkeys to attack Dorothy and gang as they headed west once all else failed. Also, throughout the book, people continually reference how the Witch of the West will enchant and enslave them. The Flying Monkeys themselves were made slaves by a princess in the North and they are now controlled by the Wicked Witch of the West.

Also, the Witch of the East was not much better, for she (somehow) enslaved the Munchkins, granted the evil wishes of people and such. The Tin Woodman would still be human if the Witch had not cursed his axe to chop him into pieces. But I think the Witches of the West and East are examples of the evils of the world. (If we think about the time period, it could get socially dicey? But let's not go there.) But another thing is that the Wicked Witch of the West has an all-seeing eye and uses wolves, bees, and crows in her arsenal.

 

[Luxuria]

The Wizard of Oz (I know there a book but still...there's a book?).

There are 14 books in the original Oz series.

 

[Luxuria]

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 gotta give you more of my pennies.

The allegory makes sense, except 2 things. The Tin Woodman would more likely be Military, because he is the most violent of the gang. But he also cried when he stepped on a beetle and squashed it. He seems to defend the innocent, but also inheirts the Land of the Winkies who are good tin smiths. The Winkies, when sent by the Witch of the West to destroy the gang, have spears and weapons. So, military industry. The Lion would speak more of the power of the State, or the fear of the state. For he is terrifed of people, but also confused why people are scared of him. In fact, he's a bull in a china shop, to be honest.