Subtext: Conversations about Classic Books and Films

The hosts are well-read, articulate, don’t always immediately agree, and can each bring various modes and postures to bear on rich texts in long-form conversations. Sometimes they do slow reads with create commentary and analysis, sometimes they do multiparty series with helpful context added. They sometimes bring other works into conversation with the texts they focus on but are pretty darn intellectually honest and clear whenever they’re adopt some particular or historically contingent frame from moment to moment. Great partners taking about great books—great show.

The subject matter, content, insights and banter of the hosts is fabulous. Wish I discovered this podcast from inception. Thank you!!!!

Such an outstanding and insightful podcast. If I could hear conversations this thoughtful and eloquent at the local pub, I would make my way there as often as possible, instead of staying home and drinking alone.

This is the most thoughtful, engaging, and funny literature podcast I know of. If they’re discussing a work I love and know thoroughly, I unfailingly walk away with new considerations, full of wonder; if they’re discussing a work I do not know, I likewise leave the episode buzzing with ideas. Either way, Subtext is always a thought-provoking and fun listen. Cannot recommend enough.

I was excited to discover this podcast so I was let down when I listened to the Die Hard episode and learned what the hosts think of Californians (41:07 - 43:30). The conversation purports to be about negative stereotypes of California but is really an argument for negative stereotypes of California. “What is it about California that is so objectionable to the New Yorker?” the hosts ask, and proceed to answer. Californians are weird, flaky, impractical, lacking in values, lacking in grit. New York, by contrast, is where “real life” takes place and where “real people” live. Why is there this sharp difference? It’s simple: weather. New Yorkers cope with brutal, yet infinitely edifying, winters while Californians presumably bask under a perma-sun, unaware of what a real life looks like. I didn’t know there was THAT much virtue in shoveling snow. I’m imagining what my fellow Californians’ reactions would be if I announced they don’t “contend” with anything, or that they don’t “contend” with enough, anyway, to pass muster. Taking a characteristic of your own area, such as cold weather, and applying it as a litmus test on the rest of the world is parochial. Ruling out the sunny spots of the globe as head-scratchingly unreal shrinks it down to an absurd extent. If the hosts insist on using their podcast to call out a state for what they view as its deficiencies, perhaps they could make more sense when they do so.

Normally love and look forward to the podcast but the Network episode was unlistenable. Discussion was rambling and without the analysis and deep insight that I’ve come to expect, especially given media history and the current cultural moment. A big miss for me.