Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I just need to state, for those few who need to hear this, that subtext DOES NOT equal text. Subtext, by nature, is interpretive. It's something read between the lines, that's why it's SUBtext. In visual mediums, this is anything that can be debated or interpreted differently (IE: The difference between 100% STATED, PROVEN, THEY-ARE-IN-HEAVEN-TOGETHER soulmates and, say, the long-term romantic love interest who has all the HALLMARKS/TROPES of a mate, but who is not textually STATED/SHOWN to be soulmate).

Text and subtext are linked, of course, but for something to move from defined subtext ("defined" meaning it's got actual evidential links you could prove in a formal paper) to out-and-out text, it has to be definitively 'there', in the form you interpret it, with evidence that can be pointed to. As in, more than interpretation (even shared by majority), there needs to be a certain amount of evidence (or 'text') to pull from to prove what you mean.

An example of this is that MANY people view the figure of Godot, in Beckette's classic play "Waiting For Godot" to be a stand-in for God. Beckette, however, LITERALLY SAID if he'd intended Godot to be God, he'd have named him God. Instead, what is happening is that many people (in fact the majority of general people, on first read/watch) have interpreted the subtext to be a representation of the search for God. The play is about two homeless men who can't remember things, basically just waiting eternally in their 'madness'. That's basically the play. They consider who Godot may be, but honestly it's never clarified or contextualized clearly. The SUBTEXT, however, does allude to a 'greater meaning' to Godot's arrival. This exchange between audience and content means that, despite the intentions of the author, the subtext has overridden the text itself: You can point to parts of the text which can clearly prop-up the argument that Godot is God, despite Beckett's intentions.

However, in the lines of dialogue and the name there is SUBTEXT which alludes to these other ideas which, potentially, also weren't even intended by the author. This means that the reading of Godot as God has shifted from pure subtext to a valid textual reading of the play (even if unintented by the author), but since it is not the ONLY way to interpret the character of Godot and was not the intended textual interpretation, "Godot is God" is STILL subtext and not text (even if it's creeping closer to text). In order for Godot to be TEXTUALLY God, instead of just subtextually (based on interpreting the physical text), there would need to be a line or some such IN the text to assert or directly allude to this. Something physical which can be pointed to as, in some manner definitively, saying "Godot IS God" which others cannot then deny. "If it can be argued down as equally with text as argued up, it's subtext, not text."

In reference to subtext in visual formats, this 'in-between-the-lines' sentiment is formed by ambiguity in the content. For example: Giving your 'best friend' a mixtape could be interpreted in numerous different ways. If music is a norm for you, communicating this way may just be easier. Or, it could be (and I take it as) a romantic trope. HOWEVER, the fact that there IS a question about the WHY, the fact that there ARE alternative interpretations, means this is definitively NOT a 'textual' assertion of a defined thing in the text. Context, then, around the scene in question, becomes crucial to defining if a thing is merely subtext or has passed into text, where content is ambiguous.

TL;DR - Subtext and text are definitively not the same thing, especially in the case of queer representing content in visual formatting. Look at Xena vs. Gabrielle - that debate has been going on since, like, the 80's/90's and Lucy Lawless LITERALLY STOPPED GOING TO CONS to avoid ever having to answer the "Are they gay" question again; the writers have long since admitted they fully wrote that subtext in to feed the shippers, but the subtext still exists despite the fact that they've all made clear Xenielle is NOT textually canon. Xena: Warrior Princess forms an EXCELLENT case study of subtext v. text in regards to visual story telling and relationships.