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.
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.
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).]
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.
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).]
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, OSC does this in his writing.