What is the issue with a writer being straightforward with what they have to say? This isn't me saying every piece of fiction needs to make it blatantly obvious what the themes or morals are but I see this criticism a lot.
"Show not tell" is a CIA plot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/7vovna/how_the_cia_subtly_interfered_with_the_arts_and/
i already look like a qanon-level crank whenever i talk about the cia, how am i supposed to get anyone to take me seriously when they do shit like this jfc
I suspect that they might be doing it on purpose, so that any discussion about CIA activities would look like an insane conspiracy theory.
Counterpoint: when you tell instead of showing, you get the "Who is John Galt?" speech
Counter-counterpoint: books are literally already telling, and being obtuse about what you're trying to say just robs it of purpose and meaning. Just because someone had a terrible point to make and made it ineptly it doesn't mean one should be obtuse as a rule, like if Ayn Rand was more subtle in her writing it would still be bad prose attempting to convey a vile message, it would have also just left it open for weirdos to try to rehabilitate it as meaning literally anything else as well.
"And Ahiga the Navajo suffered more from the whims and violence the strangers from far across the sea had brought; for one day they would ask but that he work a mere hour's worth in a day, and on another that he work an hour's worth in a minute, and on other days they would commit violence merely because he was within their sight, all this and to say nothing of the nonexistent peace his family had. Almost every day he wondered what the meaning of it all was.
Kill colonizers. That's it. That's the meaning. Kill them all, kill them again, and then kill them back to where they came from, and then kill them there too to really drive the point home. Suffer not the colonizer to live, and while we're at it, imperialists too, disgusting scum sucking leech filled pustules. Also Ahiga is Navajo for 'to fight' in case you missed the message you damn lib."
Don't know about that shit besides it came from Ayn Rand, Soviet Union worse creation
"I know writers who use subtext and they're all cowards."
For real though subtlety isn't a requirement for good writing, and sometimes my favorite works (see this by Daša Drndić) are very not subtle in that they have characters literally shouting "this is the point folks!!!" That said, if you do it wrong it's eye wateringly bad. There's little I hate more than a book or movie or whatever treating me like a child and making sure I really, really "get it." For instance, I read this short story a few days ago and it's horrible. Not subtle at all but in a childish way, feeling almost like a shitty fable. Telling rather than showing can totally work, but it doesn't always work, and in fact in most cases it absolutely doesn't work at all and makes me want to stop reading/watching.
I think a lot of people find enjoyment in interpreting a text and instilling their personal need for a meaning within a text which I see happen even with the most blatant texts like Capitalist Realism in which someone said the text said "capitalism won, buy commodities".
I think that putting a barrier in between reading something and fully understanding it can enhance the reader's enjoyment. Similar to the commonly-quoted thing about Ikea, where if you build your furniture yourself you like it more - if you build an interpretation of a text yourself, you become more attached to the text through the process. It's a fine line to walk, though - you don't want your writing to be described as "impenetrable" (unless you're a philosopher).
That said, there's definitely an elitism aspect too. The assumption is that if a text is fully understandable on a surface reading, then that means it must have been written for the masses, and you know what they're like.
Lastly I'll say that my ethos is that subtlety is lame. When the protagonist of the novel I'm currently working on beheads a capitalist, you'll know why she's doing it because right before doing it she will explain exactly how the events of the book up to that point have radicalized her into realizing that change within a broken system is doomed to failure and that the only war worth fighting is the class war.
you’ll know why she’s doing it because right before doing it she will explain exactly how the events of the book up to that point have radicalized her
At the risk of being part of the problem, if the reader has been witness to all those events and her reactions shouldn't the process already be evident? In which case the explanation is either redundant or intended as more than plain summary, such as a moment of character growth. Reading what I've typed it sounds super pedantic but I wonder where you draw the line of subtlety?
I say that's my ethos because it's kinda what I'm thinking right now, but it's entirely possible I'll write it out and decide it's terrible and try something radically different. Right now I'm imagining that the story's principle cast all represent different Enlightenment viewpoints, and that a bunch of the conversations in the book are essentially debates between these worldviews which the civil war becomes an extension of.
If a story is very clear and I can clock what it's trying to say and therefor probably what's going to happen next, I get kinda bored.
An analogy might be helpful: I really like prog rock with complex rhythms, melodies, and harmonies for instance. Part of the fun of listening is to try to grok the patterns as they unfold and then getting surprised when it does something unexpected, or feeling good when I felt something coming up that wasn't obvious. This holds for writing, too. It's fun to be guessing in your head as to exactly a character's motivations, what's behind the door, how is this all going to come back together, etc.
Sometimes a straightforward work is nice, but often enough I like something a little crunchy to keep me engaged and thinking about the work even when I'm not reading it.
I find subtlety a hugely helpful skill as it lets me plant communism seeds where otherwise I would be chased with pitchforks for being a filthy commie.
that being said it has a time and place and sometimes being straightforward is best and some of my favourite literature has been wildly unsubtle about what it means and I mainly enjoy reading books with exciting action scenes or interesting mysteries
There's a lot of ways to answer this question and there's no hard rules in writting..but my take on it is that storytelling is sort of like psycho therapy.
It would be nice if you could just bluntly tell a patient "you have issues with your mother", or "you view romantic relationships as work rather then as fun" but if you've ever confronted someone bluntly and directly about these things you probably know the success rate of getting anywhere with this approach with it is dicey at best. The trick isn't to tell the person their issues at the outset even if its obvious, but rather to sort of lead them down the road so that they gradually come to the conclusion themselves and achieve a catharsis.
Storytelling is kinda the same way. You're taking your character(s) on a journey of catharsis and the audience is along for the ride. If the journey is too straightforward or lacking in subtlety then your audience may feel alienated and detached either because they find themselves out of sync with the emotional journey of the character and/or they find the character's catharsis itself overly forced and unearned.
Again....this is not a hard rule. There's plenty of counter examples and sometimes one could argue being direct and unsubtle is what the story calls for. Sometimes, like in the psycho therapy example, the blunt approach of telling someone "stop being an asshole" is the right approach for some people at some points in their life. Writing is hard, cause human beings are hard.
i dunno, mother fuckers need to recognize gonzo journalism
libbrain
that's why they're addicted to terms like "institutional racism" and "disenfranchisement" and other long words that don't have any emotional impact, and also serve to shift the blame away from enemies, and onto nebulous, non-person entities like "institutions" (inb4 someone tries to tell me that the 'institution' killed Ahmaud Arbery lol)
same exact thing as "the gun discharged" and "these states allow cops to have sex with people in their custody"
it's just a passive form of civility
Hemmingway was pretty famous for his explicit writing style. He's hardly the only one who has employed that style since.
