Philosophies In Your Writing

[Ankari]

It is no secret that I hold Steven Erikson in high regard. In his latest novel, The Forge of Darkness, Steven Erikson lays thick various philosophies. Here is one:

‘Yet what I would speak of this morning is but the beginning of a tale. It is without borders, and its players are far from dead, and the story is far from finished. To make matters even worse, word by word I weave truths and untruths. I posit a goal to events, when such goals were not understood at the time, nor even considered. I am expected to offer a resolution, to ease the conscience of the listener, or earn a moment or two of false comfort, with the belief that proper sense is to be made of living. Just as in a tale.’

Haut the Jaghut from The Forge of Darkness. - Steven Erikson

This snippet doesn't quite capture the entire essence of what is debated. In this exchange, the characters are discussing why Haut hates telling stories. His hostage (an honorable thing) replies:

..they imply a unity that does not exist. Only rarely does a life have a theme, and even then such themes exist in confusion and uncertainty, and are described by others once that life has come to an end. A tale is the binding of themes to a past, because no tale can be told as it is happening.

Korya of the Tiste from the Forge of Darkness - Steven Erikson

Having read all of the Malazan series, one of the oft spoken criticisms is that things just happen in his books. Some threads are tied up, but many are left loose and unresolved. I feel that such an exchange between characters addresses that concern, or the implied need that everything needs to be tied up and organized to "ease the conscience of the listener, or earn a moment or two of false comfort, with the belief that proper sense is to be made of living."

I find this stuff fascinating.

So I am intrigued. How many of you like such a weaving of philosophy and fiction? What examples can you recall that did this exceptionally well?

 

[ThinkerX]

There is a ...subgenre... of 'hard' science fiction written by folks with extensive backgrounds in modern physics and cosmology (actual scientists, in other words). Most of these works, or at least most of the ones I've read, get into philosophical 'meaning of life' issues. I get the impression that once you get far enough into theoretical physics, you sort of cross the line from science and into philosophy.

One book dealt with a sort of infinite plethora of radically different universes: one an essentially infinite plain/landscape populated by resurrected humans; another where the old line pagan dieties were 'real'; another where a man climbed a mountain and became a God, to name but a few.

A second book explored 'meaning of life' issues; the characters adopted or encountered people holding to different philosophical outlooks. (I put that pretty badly).

Mostly, I found these books to be well...weird.

Apart from that, LeGuin's 'EarthSea' series (and probably some of her other books) might be described as 'philosophy as fiction'. What sticks in mind here is the response given by a wizard to a questioner concerning possessions: his response is that wizards don't really own anything, except maybe their staffs.

Feist used to get into this sort of thing a bit with his 'RiftWar' books, mostly pertaining to the nature of God(s) and how they interact with the world.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I often find myself disappointed by these books--they tend to raise complicated questions, then find trite and easy answers for them. My model is Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, which never answers its central question, and to a lesser extent Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, which outlines a powerful and seductive way of thinking and then shows the worst possible way it could fail.

 

[The Unseemly]

I often find myself disappointed by these books--they tend to raise complicated questions, then find trite and easy answers for them. My model is Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, which never answers its central question, and to a lesser extent Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, which outlines a powerful and seductive way of thinking and then shows the worst possible way it could fail.

Which comes to prove: anyone can think about philosophy, not everyone can explain philosophy. It's much harder than it appears to be. A book that does this well was one that I read recently, people might have heard of it, Life of Pi by Yann Martel. While I do admit I sometimes found the plot line a little tedious to follow, the philosophical ideas it raises are quite interesting.

I suppose this can be because of the fact that philosophy, sort of like mathematics or science, is an interwoven concept, which can't be purely understood from one idea. This is why many people find fictional philosophy disappointing/weird. It's because it tries to focus too much on one particular idea. It might be complicated, it might be deep in meaning, but trying to explain it without applying other philosophical (and to some extent, psychological) concepts just won't make sense to the reader. It's like trying to explain algebra without explaining arithmetic.

Of course, if I'm any philosopher, you have to have a balance, like with all things in life. There were other books which interwove so much different philosophical concepts that they did what no story should ever do: lose the reader. It was simply too complicated, and the authors fell for the nasty trap of knowing what they were writing about, and not considering the reader. This is perhaps another reason why people disliked these books: odd, weird, and not making sense.

 

[Nameback]

Well, I think pretty much any story needs a thematic framework, some kind of opinion. A story has to say something beyond just the words on the page--even if what's being said is fairly simple or has been said before. Sometimes it's fun and reassuring to hear the old themes repeated and retold. Even if you're doing something as simple as reaffirming the value of friendship (as opposed to, say, the more complicated task of interrogating the nature of friendship), a story feels unfinished to me if there's no theme.

Personally, I prefer themes where the author takes a stance--where there's a real thesis. Now, I don't mean heavy-handed; one can be subtle about this. But some stories have themes that ask questions rather than answer them, and some stories present a point of view. I think both are legitimate, but I personally prefer when stories have an established point of view--even if I disagree with it, because then I have something to disagree with! I'd rather strongly disagree with a strong opinion than be left in an open-ended muddle. That's more engaging to me, and potentially eye-opening. But, again, I think both strategies are equally legitimate, just a personal preference.

In my writing, then, I try to present philosophical themes, mostly to do with questions of political organization. I try to push a collectivist agenda, one that favors egalitarianism, empathy, and social cohesion, and is deeply skeptical of the value of individual liberty, natural rights, and freedom. It's not a very popular position in America, but I think it's at least an interesting dialogue to have, and one that people care about!

I also think it's good to have multiple themes. You probably need to make one theme central, but there's no reason to ignore other philosophical dilemmas that would arise in your world. I like to write about in-group/out-group dynamics, and the politics of oppression. So that means class, sex, race, gender, sexuality, religion, and so on. In addition to presenting characters who suffer from systemic oppression, both sympathetic and unsympathetic, I try to explore the nature of these structures--where do they come from? Why do they exist? Why do people adhere to them? Again, these are all questions that I provide my own answer for after I ask them.

 

[Ophiucha]

I definitely enjoy it, though it is something that needs to be handled with care if it is going to be done extensively. It can be difficult when it is more overt, as so often philosophies have sides and where there are sides, there are people on the opposite who won't care much for a book that tries to argue the opposite of what they believe. In this sense, I think often the most interesting philosophical themes of novels are ones that are a bit more abstract. Things you don't think about very often. A theme I am very fond of both in the stories I read and in one story I've written is the idea of worship versus belief, generally presented in a fantasy novel as having an objectively true deity but people, ideally the protagonist as opposed to the antagonist, who do not follow that deity. Often the philosophy of religion is very personal, theism versus atheism, etc., and it is only really going to appeal to people who are already on your side - an atheist's fantasy is ultimately more appealing to an atheist than a theist, unless the theist just enjoys seeing how the other side lives, if you will.

But fantasy and science fiction allow you to establish rules and boundaries that couldn't exist in a real world setting. You can just lay down the law and say, factually, this world does or does not have an actual god/dess and then explore some deeper meaning within belief and worship from that point on. Which I think is really interesting, and I think can apply to many other philosophies. Exploring worlds without our history, our prejudices, our laws. The nature of humanity is more interesting to explore when you have elves and nagas, too. I have nothing against ideas and themes that could just as easily be explored in a YA high school drama, but I guess as a fantasy writer I find that the limits are so much easier to push when the entire world is under your control. Though there are some authors who take that in the wrong direction, with strawman dystopias or the 'reversal of privilege' stories that I so loathe, so it certainly isn't perfect.

 

[Creed]

I know it's a little long, but I find this to be one of the most interesting little threads I've found on here so far.
I am also a great appreciator of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, not only for it's huge scope, it's wonderfully complex characters, and it's plot line, but also because it's a piece of fantasy that can truly make me think. I admit it got tedious at times. But still the journey was well worth it.*
I don't know about you, but asking questions is rather fun for me.*
ThinkerX spoke of a strange science fiction philosophy, which I can relate to from reading some Dune. It could be very odd, and I can't say I truly enjoyed the majority of it, but the book had some very thoughtful questions in it.*
To anyone who likes Steven Erikson or philosophy in fantasy I would strongly recommend The Prince of Nothing trilogy by R. Scott Bakker. I'm almost done the second book, and as I see it, the story has quickly become one of my favourites to date. Not only is it "epic" on the awesomest sense of the word, but it is a fantastically built world- with many parallels to our own- with very dynamic, believable characters, and Mr. Bakker uses philosophy perhaps even better than Steven Erikson. I will say this about The Prince of Nothing, it's more… focused… than the MBotF.*
That being said, my own philosophical additions to writing are simply described as a character's view of the world. Philo-sophy comes from the Greek for love of knowledge, and the Greeks shared it. In my opinion a character should reveal the inner turmoils of their soul to the reader, and show them the emotional depth they are capable of. Even if it's just a small thought that stems from an inconsequential corner of the plot, this microcosm of philosophy fleshes out the character. The character's own method of defining the world doesn't have to be a theory or anything shaped by a shadowy cabal of philosophers, just as long as it's them, unknowingly sharing their personal views to the voyeuristic reader.*

 

[Aurelian]

I agree with Nameback. We all need and end up using a thematic opinion. However I think that you walk a fine line the more you try to incorporate philosophical musings into your story. Most of the time the philosophical side of my stuff is more a person and how they react to a situation they are placed in.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think I'd have more liking for stories that take a point of view if they weren't so disparaging towards other points of view. Like, say I'm reading a dumb little story about a virtuous paladin. It's probably fun, and I'm likely to sympathize with the paladin. Now say I'm reading a cheesy '50s throwback about a heroic scientist. It's probably fun too, and I'm likely to sympathize with the scientist. Now say I'm reading a story in which a hero like the paladin and a hero like the scientist come into conflict in any way. If one is portrayed as wrong, the other will probably 1): be portrayed as a terrible person, and/or 2): achieve clarity by becoming exactly like the other. I'd rather just see them bounce off each other.

P.S. What's worse is when the author doesn't even know how the other side thinks. For instance, a lot of Christian writers take it as a given that beauty could not exist without God, so they assume that anyone who doesn't believe in God has never perceived beauty, and treat the perception of beauty as all that's needed to make an atheistic character start believing in God. I don't believe in God, but I take it as a given that a universe could not exist without any form of beauty in it, so these stories leave me utterly baffled.

P.P.S. I deliberately left out nature heroes, who tend to wind up at loggerheads with both monotheistic and scientific heroes, since I hate that archetype anyway.

 

[Sparkie]

I think I'd have more liking for stories that take a point of view if they weren't so disparaging towards other points of view. Like, say I'm reading a dumb little story about a virtuous paladin. It's probably fun, and I'm likely to sympathize with the paladin. Now say I'm reading a cheesy '50s throwback about a heroic scientist. It's probably fun too, and I'm likely to sympathize with the scientist. Now say I'm reading a story in which a hero like the paladin and a hero like the scientist come into conflict in any way. If one is portrayed as wrong, the other will probably 1): be portrayed as a terrible person, and/or 2): achieve clarity by becoming exactly like the other. I'd rather just see them bounce off each other.

Hasn't a lot of literature gotten past that though? It seems like more and more authors are embracing 'gray areas' (moral, philosophical, or otherwise.) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most authors who write these kinds of stories aren't so closed-minded as to portray one side as being the absolute right.

 

[AstralCat]

I tend to avoid that genre all together for a very simple reason. The fact is that most of the philosophies brought up in these sorts of science fiction or fantasy stories almost never align with my own philosophies. For example, I simply can't enjoy anything in the Lovecraft universe, because I don't agree with the whole life-is-meaningless tone of... everything. ...That's kind of an extreme example though.

But to each his own. A lot of people like having big mind blowing ideas in their fiction. And technically all fiction has some degree of the author's own philosophy in it. I just prefer a more moderate amount of it most of the time.

 

[Nameback]

I think I'd have more liking for stories that take a point of view if they weren't so disparaging towards other points of view. <snip>

This is important to remember. Even if you take a stance (as opposed to asking open-ended questions, which again I think is a legitimate thematic format), you should have a good working knowledge of what people who disagree believe, so that you can represent them accurately and without being unnecessarily disrespectful.

Just like you don't want to have a one-dimensional antagonist who's pure evil, you don't want your themes to be one-dimensional either. And of course, if you are much into philosophy, odds are you have some dilemmas of your own where your opinion is divided--which makes good fodder.

Again, to use myself as an example, I don't care much for the traditional Western ideas about natural rights, individual freedom, and democracy. But if you're serious about a point of view, you have to know that any point of view is a trade-off. I don't value privacy very much, for example, and so I'm OK with a panopticon-style state that monitors everything. But obviously there are drawbacks to that, potential for abuse, and the loss of privacy is something others do value. So while I have my opinion, an honest discussion would express the entire dilemma. And while I have a stance on how to resolve that dilemma, readers who disagree with me can still enjoy the story because I have fully posed the question first. The dialogue, the question, the debate--these things are enjoyable for anyone no matter their opinion.

 

[Chessie]

I like a good philosophy to a story if its done right. Otherwise, I seem to miss the point or it feels forced down my throat. Although I prefer stories to just be "real" rather than prove a point to me since this approach makes more sense with how in the world, many situations go unresolved.

 

[Steerpike]

I like stories with a well-done philosophical approach. Whether it aligns with my own beliefs or not is irrelevant to me. Whether it is fiction or non-fiction, I don't see much benefit in only reading things that present views I agree with. I also agree that most of the writing in the genre is now a lot more nuanced than some of what has been stated above. From YA/Teen on up through books targeted at adults, there are tons of books in the genre that do a nice job of building characters on both sides of things, rather than presenting a caricature as a villain.