I went to Kate Snodgrass' "Writing Subtext" workshop
at the Last Frontier Playwrights Conference shortly before the
performance of my play. Took notes, thought about how I use
subtext myself. I don't practice it as a conscious technique
when I write-- though sometimes I do when revising. I'm of the
"tap the subconscious" school while at the same time
usually basing my characters and situations on real people and
incidents that I have at some point observed (or occasionally
read about). I tend to "hear" what my characters are
saying and "take dictation" from them, and figure
out what they are trying to do (subtext) by their verbal behavior
in much the same way a reader/actor/audience would, working
hard to keep up with them, deducing rather than defining a priori
relationships. Revision is filtering out irrelevance and digression
(though characters will generate irrelevance and create digressions
when their scene partners seem to be "on to" their
hidden or unconscious motives, and that stuff is signal, not
noise) and arrange the beats and complications into a strong
through-line.
Kate's example of subtext was "Hills Like White Elephants",
the Hemingway story, which is short enough that Kate could read
it aloud to the gathered playwrights and actors in about 10
minutes. Some knew it, many didn't: of those who didn't know
it, about 1/3 didn't "get it" until others "explained"
what is going on between the lovers as they wait for a train
which will take the woman to a city in Spain where she will
(or won't) have "an operation". I have taught this
story to freshmen in remedial English, and 5/6ths of them don't
"get it" until after they have kicked it around for
awhile in discussion. As text, it baffles them. Told to act
it, they'd be utterly lost, unable to play their actions. But
after talking about it for a while they decide-- like the theatre
people in Kate's class, in less time and with fewer hints--
that the man is pushing the woman toward an action which he
is verbally "selling" as a small thing that will "fix"
their relationship-- but they can tell that the couple's relationship
is already doomed. The guy is treating her like a thing, and
she has gone dead.
Contemporary kids are baffled by the idea of an unnamable abortion:
if that's what the scene is about, why don't the characters
Say So? In English class there are other terms used for this
fictional technique, but a solid minority thinks it is a dirty
trick: authors should just come out and say what they mean and
not expect a reader to have to work to "get it"!
In the workshop, Kate points out that actors ITCH to stage
this story, so spare with words and so rich with subtext. And
audiences who have their suspicions confirmed as subtext unfolds
feel empowered, wise, and almost like co-authors. Kate passes
out a handout with exercises and suggestions for developing
dialogue with strong subtext.
So during this workshop I'm thinking about the one act of mine
being done at the conference, which is almost the opposite of
Hemingway: Verbose, effusive, witty, full of expansive show-offy
"stuff".
Here's the set up of my script about The Oldest Established
Permanent Rolling Cast Party:
A first class compartment on the 11:08pm South Central commuter
train to Brighton from London's Victoria Station. Two men,
no longer young but appearing boyish in black jeans and black
T shirts with old West End show logos on them, are seated
facing each other, drinking beer from a collection of six
packs piled on the seats beside them and at their feet. Jackets,
caps, a couple of packages of crisps, a duffle bag and a backpack
or two also litter the area. BRICK is burley, ALFIE lean and
wiry. CAROL, a colorfully dressed but otherwise unremarkable
American woman of approximately the same age as the two British
men, opens the half glass door of the compartment, but hesitates
in the corridor outside. The men spot the theatre program
Carol is carrying and after a quick silent consultation urge
her to join them in their compartment.
I expect the actors to "get" and play that 1) the
guys are cooperating in putting on a show for Carol. 2) they
are also competing with each other for her attention, and to
define the triangular relationship that is developing. To do
this, they must choose and play a series of objectives re: Carol
e.g. befriend, seduce, amuse, tease, patronize, challenge, ....
etc. Carol is on guard in this section, and her action is mostly
limited to approving/opening up to or rejecting/ withdrawing
from the direction in which the guys are pushing. But this "listening"
role too must be an active series of choices-- or else she's
a dull lump and they are boring expositors and the play is dead
in the water. In the playwright-directed rehearsal I talked
a little bit about this-- and the excellent actors made big
choices and the text leapt into life!
I added the last sentence in the set-up and some few stage
directions to the current draft to make it more likely that
a reader will be alert to subtext w/o having the playwright
to prompt him. (7/14/05)
and here's a link to my play The London to Brighton 11:08 aka
The Oldest
Established Permanent Rolling Cast Party.
by 
