Writing a Philosophical Novel
I am quite interested in the idea of writing a work of fiction in order to explore my philosophical ideas and other ideas and also as a form of therapy.
What do you think of philosophical novels and what do you think counts a philosophical novel?
Have you tried writing one yourself? Is there one you would recommend? Has a novel influenced you philosophically?
Are Thought experiments the equivalent of philosophical fiction? If so I find them quite effective at provoking intuitions.
What do you think of philosophical novels and what do you think counts a philosophical novel?
Have you tried writing one yourself? Is there one you would recommend? Has a novel influenced you philosophically?
Are Thought experiments the equivalent of philosophical fiction? If so I find them quite effective at provoking intuitions.
Comments (61)
J.L. Borges belief in compression for the conveyance of ideas is probably valuable. This is the age of a great textual flood (babble). I'm still struck by what could possibly be extrapolated from Borges' Library of Babel. Each of works in his short story collection Labyrinths modify and expand the way we think about the others.
Though if you are writing a work purely for yourself, you're free to do as you please.
Calvino on Borges
So, writing a philosophical novel is like writing a novel. Give it a whirl. If you turn out something as good as Brothers Karamazov, great. If it's just for yourself, that's good too. The process is probably more important than the finished product.
What do you mean by "explicitly"? They all incorporate lengthy philosophical dialogues or monologues. The Russians tend to dive more deeply into their philosophical heritage.
I think Alice in Wonderland is great for stimulating the imagination. I quite like that format each scenario and character interaction provokes the imagination or thought. There is no lengthy diversionary prose and you are left with lots of images.
There lots of topics I would be interested in exploring. Responsibility, Parenting, meaning, philosophy of mind and language, Economics, property and ownership, war, depression and anxiety .
I have started one story that I have paused for a long time while I debate it's validity to myself. It is about someone who does not want to fight in World War 1 and doesn't feel responsible to have to fight and debates the ethics of it.
I rad Anna Karenina years ago but I can't remember if it stimulated philosophical thought in me. I have read Charles Dickens and see him as a Social campaigner.
I want to write something explicit which reads as an argument for an explicit position or an exploration of a debate. I wouldn't want to be to lengthy, archaic or verbose.
I think if you are going to write a book it should offer a new perspective or be a modern take on something old.
I am interested in The Self and I have been unhappy and unconvinced by what people have written on this topic
When I say "You" I mean "a person" or "One" but I find the use of "one" quite archaic.
Like the Queen talking of "One's subjects"
My theme would probably involve some kind of journey and an introspection on one's mental states and place in reality. It would probably involve someone in opposition to something.
They're not single issue books, if that's what you want. Yes, they are long, but that's how they get to the heart of a lot of issues without being shallow and flakey.
Anna Karenina is one of the greatest novels ever written. It explores themes of marriage, justice, loyalty, faith, responsibility toward society versus the self.... And so on. I'm afraid you just weren't reading carefully if you couldn't see any of that.
Dickens explored social issues, true, but since there's literally a whole branch of SOCIAL-POLITICAL philosophy, I'm not sure how that makes it unphilosophical.
Honestly, if your book fails to explore social-politcal dimensions of warfare... It's bound to be pretty narrow and just scratching the surface. But hey. Maybe that's what you're going for.
I read it years ago before I study philosophy. I cannot remember much of it.
Can you cite specific philosophical point made in it? What was its stance on marriage?
I think a book should be fairly enjoyable and fairly easy to read and explicit if it wants to engage with a point.
My book that I started about World war one was using the war and conscription to argue against anyone having responsibility to their society or parents but rather the reverse About the futility of sacrifice. The integrity of self. About the pointlessness of suffering. About fear and mental health related to existential anxiety.
AK shows marriage to be complicated. It also shows that it requires a certain sense of giving up personal freedom. It locates happiness for most people within these confines, however, and shows that many people who seek more freedom eventually regret it. But there's a lot more complexity to it than I'm describing, because life is complex.
Easy is relative. Most "easy" books are simplistic and don't really dig beyond the surface of things. You can challenge yourself to grow and then "hard" books, like War and Peace actually become easier reads.
If you're going to engage on the mammoth task of writing any novel, never mind a philosophical one, you should probably begin by at least demonstrating an ability to construct some well-formed paragraphs in your posts here or no-one with any sensitivity to the rhythms of the language as expressed by any decent author will be able to get past the first page of your proposed project. I know I wouldn't if it were written like the above. In other words, in order to write a work of any kind, even of the most modest kind, you have to be able to write.
"Matthew stared at the at the heap of papers on his desk. It suddenly struck him that maybe this was all completely pointless. He tried to repress this thought for the rest of the day."
Some science fiction books rise to the level of philosophical novels and they are good stories to boot. I read several sci fi titles by Ursula Le Guin which had some good solid philosophical content.
The main thing is to write and keep writing, and don't throw away stuff that you have written because you think it isn't any good. Just keep writing. Producing a good book takes a lot of sitting still at a desk and working away. Practice, practice, practice...
Also, be a bit shy about showing stuff to random people. No matter what you write, many people will shoot you down and there is nothing helpful about that. Writers need encouragement, not withering criticism. Once you become a famous established writer, then you can open yourself up to withering reviews.
I think that is a quality that was minted in American Science Fiction through the likes of Kornbluth and Philip K. Dick. And those works were "thought experiments" in the direct sense of the word. Perhaps a genre distinction is needed between the fatalistic observations of Dostoevsky and Kafka and the "what if" of other writers.
That's sounds OK. My suggestion simply is that if you want to be a writer, try to maintain, first and foremost, a consistently high level of quality in everything you write, including your posts here. That type of discipline will bleed positively into your work.
See, that's what I mean. Criticism that keeps you from even getting close to the airport, let alone starting down the runway to take off.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
So there's your opening 3 sentences; a good start for a short story. Something is going to happen later that day. What? Good? Bad? Very very bad? Utterly surprising? We don't know. You don't either, yet. Keep writing, and for god's sake don't show it to bury the baby before it is born Baden.
The Twelve Chairs, By Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov was also good. Mel Brooks made one of the several movies based on the soviet-society-satirizing novel. I thought it was hilarious.
Completely honest criticism is what any aspiring writer should want before anything else. Writing is not some special profession where you don't have to be good and everyone should just pat you on the back for trying. If an apprentice carpenter builds a chair that looks like it's going to fall apart the moment someone sits on it, he gets told it's a piece of crap and to start again. And that's how he gets good and we all get to sit around without hurting our asses. Same with writing. It's not something everybody can just do or that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a skill and it's hard and you're not doing anyone any favours by pulling punches on their apparent ability or lack thereof.
I have a lot of self doubt. I am also quite critical of other peoples writing.
Honest criticism for an actually aspiring writer is one thing. What you did was nip it in the bud.
I agree with the excellent author, Flannery O'Connor, about criticism:
“There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
Actually, Baden and @Andrew, Flannery O'Connor is worth a look, both for one's pleasure and instruction. I don't especially care for her full length novels (she didn't write many) but her short stories contain some of the best, tightest, most highly polished writing in the language. "A Good Man Is Hard to Find (A Hard Man Is Good to Find is by somebody else.) and The Life You Save May Be Your Own available at the same site.
Of course you have a lot of self doubt -- you and few billion other people. As for being so critical of your own and others writing, it's a dead end. But... when you sit down at the table, keyboard or pen in had, remember: nothing is a stake. You are free to write whatever you please. And you are free to find it pleasing, as well. The thing is, get it written.
Will you be successful? I don't know. Statistically the odds are against every writer that wants to write really good poetry, fiction, drama, screen plays, etc. including me, Baden, and everybody else. Nonfiction is much easier to write. Writing that ends up being classified as "printed matter" is the easiest of all. Terabytes of trash are turned out by truckloads of talentless twats.
Your writings tend to generate just more writing and other benign tautologies, never really having any appeal except for all the stolen uncited content. You crap authors will only ever relatively win by the consensually mediated love for your peers.
Mwahahahah (laughs maniacally)
Nothing is at stake. Whether by moderator, critic, the tears of a loved one, or the end of time, you will be effaced.
Yes. That sort of thing.
But I will have to reject it on the principles established.
Damn you, remorseless donkey.
Alright. Maybe it was a bit full-on considering the context. I will say I've seen writers go on for years at the same not-very-good level while receiving all the while warm well-intended praise/encouragement that only serves to prevent them improving, but, yes, criticism can be misplaced too.
:grin:
It's really not though.
And classics have stood the test of time because they are well-written and contain important thoughts about the human condition and other philosophical issues.
It's one thing to dislike a classic novel--that's just taste. It's another to to fail to realize why the novel is a classic, your own preferences aside. That failure shows that you really don't understand the novel at all, likely through a lack of literary ability and knowledge.
I love "The Never Ending Story" and also "Sophies World".
What I like about "Sophie's World" is learning about classical philosophy with the added mystery of who was writing those notes? I could identify with the young girl and I enjoyed the hiding places as they reminded me of when I was young and exploring and hiding, so I would say the ability to identify with a character is important too.
Googling philosophy novels resulted in finding many links.
I will agree constructive criticism is a benefit. And so is just looking for information about how to write, how to publish, and whatever information the book may need. The internet is great for getting information, and there are really good books to help an aspiring writer. Reading is important to writing. We read to learn style and technological points such as how to construct a sentence, or how to develop a character. Writing a factual book is different from writing a novel, and in our technological society, I have seen a greater focus on validating facts, than in the past, if one is writing non-fiction. It is a little intimidating. Serious authors often have the money to travel around the world and dine with influential people. That is not a benefit I have.
No matter why we write, the effort benefits our thinking and that can make it worth the effort even if we don't publish.
I think the point of writing a novel is to entertain people in some way.If you wanted to inform someone you could write something factual or write a philosophy article.
I want to know if a book made a coherent powerful philosophical point then what was it?
Your positions seems a bit elitist.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Well, which is it now? Are you trying to make a powerful point or merely entertain? You can do both, but your first paragraph implies you think novels oughtn't do that.
I'll embrace elitism if it means I'm not just reading surface level books that are at best vague, and at worst, contradictory.
A regular novel may just want to entertain. I want to read something enlightening at least, at best, transformative. That's what great literature does.
Ideally, the point of writing a novel (worth anything) is to give a reader something they couldn't have got without reading it, whether that be a type of unique experience or knowledge or whatever form of edification. If it's to be worth anything of lasting value, it wouldn't be simply another entertainment, of which there is no shortage and that can be got at a moment's notice just about anywhere. It's not elitist to recognize that or to try to understand the value that's placed on classics.
[Edit: Cross posted with above]
An impediment to getting a message a cross is if the reader is bored. I don't think you can blame people if they are bored or uninterested in a novel or its theme. I think you could engage the masses with philosophy more if you made it easier to access in an entertaining format. I don't think philosophy is better if it is long winded and uses fancy prose.
I think that some messages in books have already impacted society and so even if you have not read the book you will be influenced by the ideas such as With Dickens criticisms of society.
There's no accounting for taste, as they say. But you can educate and refine your tastes.
Most people interested in a philosophical novel are going to be bored with a novel that is too simple in style and/or content.
If the reader knows it's fiction, it's not a form of deceit, so whatever form of lying remains is fairly harmless.
My idea of a philosophical novel is one that makes a clear proposition or arguments and defends it. I think any novel can feel philosophical or inspire philosophical thought.
I feel like you are playing lip service to the "classics" because of their status. But many people are made to read classic novels in school as part of literature class and are bored by them.
I would like someone say to me something like "You should read this novel it offers a great refutation of solipsism"
Most people are bored by any philosophical discourse. Or math. Or science. Or history. I don't think the value of most things should be based on what teens feel about them.
The classics, for the most part (and I'll admit to some exceptions) are classics for good reason.
A good refutation of solipsism can be found in Robinson Crusoe, btw.
How does it offer to refute solipsism and do you have to read the entire novel to find this out?
Do you think that most people who read the novel are aware that it offers a refutation for solipsism?
I have a problem with the style of language old novels are written in because we don't talk like that anymore. If these authors were alive to day would they write in that style?
I liked the film The Matrix for offering a simple exposition of the idea that reality could be an illusion. I think if a film just incorporated one idea like that it would make it more enjoyable.
I literally loled at this. Yes. Yes, you have to read a whole book.
You're starting to sound like some of my students who tell me that they love to write, and they're great writers, but they hate to read... It really really does not work that way.
Why would it take a whole book to make an argument against a straightforward premise?
You sound like you teach English but most people don't and don't have time to read all the classics.
I read a lot as a child and young adult and I have read quite a few classics like Anna Karenina, Great expectations, Wuthering Heights and so on, a couple of decades ago. If you teach literature then you certainly have an advantage.
But I just wanted to know a specific explicit argument like the one contained in The Matrix derived from one of these novels. If you want to encourage people to read these works it is worth giving an interesting summary of what to expect.
I grew up in a house without a television so I only read books as a source of entertainment until my late teens/early twenties. I got top marks in my English Language and English Literature classes.
I remember when our class went to see "Much ado About Nothing" at Stratford on Avon and one of the English Teachers was falling a sleep and the consensus was that it was a boring production I believe. The summary of "Much ado about Nothing" we were given was better than the play. I enjoyed reading Macbeth however and I really enjoyed Euripides Medea.
You can't do a great idea or theory justice in some short quip. Life is complex. Philosophy and art should mirror that.
If you just want to write a pop-culture book, then go ahead, but don't pretend it's any deeper than that.
While comments about morality, ethics, and politics are fairly common, other topics are more rare. It is possible to do quite a bit about philosophy of mind in SF with robots. Existentialist states are describable in diary form.
I onl;y know one good metaphysical novel: Hunger, by Knut Hamsun.
I think any novel or novelist writing about the human condition will inevitably contain aspects of philosophy. It is perhaps a matter of degree how any personal views of the author are incorporated into a story.Some are practically autobiographical in nature and are inspired by important life experiences, observations or themes.
I think it rare that any philosophical novel would make a 'clear proposition or arguments and defends it'
Where would be the fun in that? Goodness, hardly any Real Philosophy Book or Philosopher makes things clear. Hence the whole forum discussion scenario...
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Where in The Matrix do you find the 'clear proposition' with a 'specific explicit argument' ?
Just curious. I haven't read the book, but have watched the film.
I can read about philosophical influences in wiki:
Philosophical influences
It has been suggested by philosopher William Irwin that the idea of the "Matrix" – a generated reality invented by malicious machines – is an allusion to Descartes' "First Meditation", and his idea of an evil demon. The Meditation hypothesizes that the perceived world might be a comprehensive illusion created to deceive us.[7] The same premise can be found in Hilary Putnam's brain in a vat scenario proposed in the 1980s.[7] A connection between the premise of The Matrix and Plato's Allegory of the Cave has also been suggested. The allegory is related to Plato's theory of Forms, which holds that the true essence of an object is not what we perceive with our senses, but rather its quality, and that most people perceive only the shadow of the object and are thus limited to false perception.[32]
----------
We can talk about any novel having philosophical influences but it need not necessarily contain an explicit argument for a specific, explicit argument.
If you want to write a philosophical novel, then I think it would be a good idea to start with yourself.
Know Thyself. And that is why some fiction might be required. You wouldn't necessarily want to bear all and expose other real life characters to the glare of publicity. Or would you ?
I don't even know why this would be a problem. It's a story. We are living our own narratives and yes, we sometimes don't see or know the whole truth. We only have our own perspective - unless we get to read about others...or share tales, tall or otherwise.
Exactly. This.
I think even though we know something is fiction it can still effect our beliefs and emotions. This happened to me as a child.
I think in order for fiction to make sense it has to use realistic elements and these are the things that could deceive us.
I could compare it to my dreams as well which I often find psychologically disturbing and remember even though I accept that what happened was imaginary.
So I think fiction has some responsibility not be be too manipulative or propaganda. If a novel wanted to campaign against an injustice it should not distort facts or be too reliant on emotion over reason.
Here is my piece of advice:
1. Start thinking about a plot that would illustrate your philosophical ideas: these ideas should be showed in the actual plot, not just expressed by the characters in the dialogue (although a few good hints in the dialogue can obviously help). The Matrix is a perfect example of this: it has terrible dialogue, but a spectacular and mind-blowing plot. That's where its power resides.
Thinking out this plot is the most difficult and crucial part of creating your novel. But it can also be the most fascinating and rewarding.
2. Once you have a good plot that fleshes out your philosophical ideas (or your philosophical questions, which would be even better), you need good characters. Characters that your readers will care about. The most amazing plot will fall flat if your characters aren't up to the task. Remember that you are writing a novel, not a movie script. You can't rely on the carisma of some famous actor like Keanu Reeves (an absolute star, imho). There are many books that teach you how to "flesh out" your characters, but in the end I feel it all comes down to having a deep understanding of human psychology, and that can only start with understanding yourself. Deeply.
3. And this takes me to the discussion about the classics of literature: Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky... These are classics because of the depth of their characters. (Other classics like Hemingway or James Joyce are more so because of the quality of their narrative voice, but I won't go there now.) And they are never boring. I just read Dostoevsky's The Idiot and boy, was that a page-turner! More addictive than any stupid best-seller I ever read (I also read some of those, yes). There have been famous books like Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain that consist almost exclusively of interminable philosophical dialogues (or sometimes monologues), but that's not what you want: those kind of books are the definition of "boring" for an average reader. So again, I recommend you express your philosophy through the action and the interactions between the characters, not the dialogue.
4. Some writers that have tried this kind of thing (expressing philosophical ideas through popular fantasy or sci-fi novels): George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Colin Wilson, Ursula K. Le Guin, Frank Herbert, Philip K. Dick... the list is endless. Actually, most great sci-fi writers ground their works on deep philosophical questions. Outside sci-fi you have writers like Hermann Hesse... There must be others, but they don't come to my mind right now. I think most philosophically minded novelists have always tended towards science-fiction or fantasy. An early example is Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
Anyway, I hope this helps! Even if you never get to publish or even finish your novel you will have great fun and learn a lot, I guarantee. I just finished my "masterpiece", which is exactly like that, a "The Matrix"-like work of fiction, and I'm feeling pretty happy and proud of my achievement. :)
Well done!!