posted
Does anyone here fall to the very sweet temptation of stuffing a lot of philosophy into your writing? I know I do, and I love it. I like reading it, I like thinking it, and I've found I tend to express a lot of interesting (and often contradictory ideas) into characters, and see what happens when they interact. I think this adds a kind of maturity, a kind of intellectual depth.
However, I'm looking down through the rose-colored glasses of the writer. And I'm not sure how a readership would respond to it. Do you find you enjoy this sort of thing? Are you stimulated by spot-lights on new points of view, often examined in depth (and always relevant to the story.) Or is that something that weighs down the narrative and distracts from the story? Do you skip philosophical conversations, or do you relish them?
If you're ambivalent tell me which side you'd rather a book err on. Too much philosophical discussion, or not enough.
posted
I can't think of any nooks I've read that do that actually, not off the top my head. I suppose I would probably lean toward "skip the philosophy and get on with the story."
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah---it's done a surprising amount in film. But I can't think of many books that really delve into it off the top of my head either. But there's got to be something. There's always at least one. Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
psnede
unregistered
posted
When I think of philosophy within a story, I think of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead). I haven't read either of them yet. We have Atlas Shrugged at home and there is an insert to join the "Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectiveism." anyone a member? Yeah, me neither. I believe her philosophy is told through the story, not in the midst of the story, but don't quote me on it.
War and Peace (highly recommend) begins most of the chapters with a philosophical dissertation. It worked for Tolstoy, but I find anything diverging from the story a distraction. I enjoy philosophy/theology and have read many books on the subjects alone. I love a good story, and don't like anything to take me outside of it. I also don't like it when I feel that someone wrote a story just as a vehicle to transport their philosophy to the reader.
posted
I re-read my post above and decided it's not as clear as I'd like it to be. So I'm going to add to it.
Suppose the philosophy is not so much a set of ideas that are told to you, but rather questions our character is grappling with directly because of events in the story. [for instance he might be deciding whether to "act" or "not act" in either case choosing to harm a separate group of people.] And what he decides is critical to his behavior, how he acts. And arriving at this choice is extremely relevant to the story that is unfolding. Then is it okay to spend some time looking at the issue in full? Or does that feel boring and unnecessary? Where's your line?
Often these ideas are discussed literally, through dialog between characters. And almost as often it is an internal monologue. (I hope this is making it clearer.)
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited December 20, 2007).]
posted
Uh... I guess I'm still not sure what you're asking. By this definition, a lot of books I read deal with this. There's almost always a character grappling with something, deciding whether it's right or no, trying to figure out the moral or philosophical permutations.
What you said, though, about keeping it and character and introducing it in non-info-dumpy/ preachy ways is right on, though. I think it can quickly feel too heavy if not dealt with a light touch.
posted
I personally found Ayn Rand rather preachy on her philosophy which annoyed me although there are points on which I agree. I just don't like info-dumpy sermons in the middle of fiction.
And I agree with annepin. Many characters grapple with ethical and/or philosophical problems. But that doesn't mean you have to have it expounded.
quote: Suppose the philosophy is not so much a set of ideas that are told to you, but rather questions our character is grappling with directly because of events in the story. [for instance he might be deciding whether to "act" or "not act" in either case choosing to harm a separate group of people.] And what he decides is critical to his behavior, how he acts. And arriving at this choice is extremely relevant to the story that is unfolding. Then is it okay to spend some time looking at the issue in full? Or does that feel boring and unnecessary? Where's your line?
If the character is a thinker, and has the inclination to evaluate things in full, then I love to read that kind of philosophic musing and discussion. If it's out of place for who they are, then I'd be put off.
quote: Are you stimulated by spot-lights on new points of view, often examined in depth (and always relevant to the story.) Or is that something that weighs down the narrative and distracts from the story? Do you skip philosophical conversations, or do you relish them?
When done well, I relish them.
[This message has been edited by Marzo (edited December 20, 2007).]
posted
In my opinion, OSC put a lot of philosophy into his Ender saga (his only saga I read so far). I liked the one about Edge/Center nations. There were also some that were a waste of time to me (I hope he doesn't read this ).
I also strive to enrich my fiction with philosophy but tend to brake it into fragments and supply it in small dosages. Same with background stories. The problem of course is that the reader needs to remember what was said before but I believe that is easier than reading through 10 pages of raw philosophy to the point of dislocating their jaw from yawning.
I have some bizarre philosophies at hand, some of them completely contradictory to the other. I intend to use them for antagonists so it's not just a physical battle but the battle of their ideologies too.
Oh and, I don't read philosophy in general. Tried to read Plato but got tired at page 70.
posted
I actually find myself a bit torn, and I think it is because the question of quality is important to me. If done well, there just can't be enough philosophy. I love philosophy. The only thing that kept me from either an English or Philosophy degree (it would have been a tossup) is that I'm not fond of starving. But done poorly, and any attempt at philosophy can be punishing.
I don't try to inject philosophy into my own writing. Perhaps it's lack of confidence, but I tell myself that philosophy is so much of my personality that it will creep in anyway.
posted
Ayn Rand inserts her philosophy by having her characters monologue. It's cheap, unbelievable, and generally stupid. As long as you don't blend philosophy in like that, I think you'll be fine. Heinlein blends in philosophy, and I didn't mind. Although there have quite a few times when I stop reading a book because it felt like I was being preached at. It's like anything in writing, do it well, and you're fine.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not overfond of philosophising when I read fiction...even when I agree with the philosophy, it still comes off as preachy and with long stretches of talking about it. (Ayn Rand and late Heinlein work are good examples of bad ways of handling it.)
Even when a writer just has characters take one side of a philosophic divide, it tends to make the heroes more heroic and the villains more villanious, and to cast these things in terms of black and white.
Robert, in my case most of the philosophy is more the breed of questions that cannot be answered clearly, easily, and sometimes can't be answered at all. What motivates a character to save one person and let another die, if only one could be saved. That kind of thing. Shades of gray. If anything I tend to have conversations (short arguments) between two characters of opposite philosophies [though almost never the MC] and I have both characters making very reasonable points, and the reaction I'm going for is "ahhh yes, that's a sticky issue, not sure what they should do." I write for thinking readers. But that may mean I never publish.
How do most of you expose a character struggling with a moral dilemma? Have any examples?
posted
I do understand what you're getting at and when it's done well I like to read it and write it.
Any good story, IMHO, has at least some of this in it. It's more than just the story -- there's a point. An observation about human nature, society, politics, etc.
I don't want to read a story in which the characters have endless philosophical conversations or debate. Rather, I want to read a story in which the very actions speak to a deeper meaning or purpose.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
).
But done poorly, and any attempt at philosophy can be punishing. 
