The novel as a philosophical construct

[Brian G Turner]

Even where the aim of the story is to explore some philosophical construct, to myself this works best with some form of deeper character association through which the reader can explore this construct.

To this example I would directly compare Orwell's "1984" with Huxley's "Brave New World" - in the former, you follow Winston quite intimately, and it's through Winston's experience of the world of the party that we are made to feel horrified of it. However, Brave New World is far closer to an essay in form, and frankly uses character in a very light and barely serious manner. Thus I would distinctly argue that 1984 works far better as a novel.

However, the novel as a philosophical construct can take on many different forms - so I'd like to open this thread particularly on how philosophy can be explored via the medium of the novel.

 

[Sirathiel]

There is quite a famous novel calles Sophie's World (at least I think that that is it's name) by a Scandinavian author. Sorry, but it has been a while since I've held it in my hands...

The book deals with most of the philosophical theories that exist. It's the story of Sophie who receive's letters adressed to another girl. Through these letters she enters into the different philosphical theories.

At the end Sophie is revealed to exist only in a world that was thought up by the writer of the letters. A very philosophical concept.

I think this book was meant for children, but I think people of all ages will enjoy it. It puts the reader to thinking while revealing the world of philosophy to him or her. I enjoyed it immensely and am looking forwar to rereading it.

If anybody knows the author, he's also written other books that deal with philosophy. But it was Sophie's World that caught my heart and my interest.

EDIT: The author is Jostein Gaarder and the book is really called Sophie's World (just looked it up...)

 

[bregorzloth]

Agreed--1984 is a great book, whereas Brave New Word never really grabbed me. I think it's the difference between telling a story and exploring an idea. When Tolkein wrote The Lord of the Rings, he started the worldbuilding off as more of an exercise in language and culture, but it soon evolved into a powerful story. It's possible to do both at the same time. I think the best novels of all are those which explore an original and thought-provoking idea, yet do so through the eyes of believable and likeable characters. For this reason, I didn't really like Asimov's Foundation series--he never really stayed with one character for long enough, in my opinion. I prefer shorter time-scales for novels.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

However, I do not feel that, philosophically, Tolkien had very much of interest to say. A series like Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books definitely is exploring interesting and tricky questions - and I'd agree that it works because certain conflicts are embodied in the character of Covenant, rather than in the form of exposition.

Several philosophers have written interesting novels - Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus for instance, which play out their ideas in the form of the actions (or lack thereof) of their characters. I was only able to wrest some meaning out of Sartre's Being and Nothingness after reading Nausea and the Roads To Freedom trilogy, so I'd say that novels are an aprt form for exploring philosophy.

However, I wonder where the element of didacticism should stand. I believe that Camus wrote several of his books to make a point, while Sartre, perhaps, was more exploring ideas and their logical conclusions. Huxley was definitely preaching in some form in Brave New World, Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning that fascism was far from dead.

However, when making a point it is possible to misrepresent reality and slant things to play out in favour of your view - I'd say that Heinlein wanders into this a bit, for instance. When reading a book for its philosophical argument, if any, I think it's important not to take the writers' intellectual integrity for granted but to try and engage the book in a critical dialogue.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Ah - Camus. He wrote a theatrical adaption, called the Devils, of Dostoyevsky's The Dispossessed. A truly engaging work in both forms - Kirilov's dilemma is a great construct for exploring the issue of Free Will.

 

[littlemissattitude]

This is tricky ground, I think. Most readers of fiction are not going to sit still for long philosophical ramblings when what they are looking for is a good story. I think it is a great example, using "1984" as opposed to "Brave New World" to illustrate this. I loved "1984", and I've never been able to get through "Brave New World" even though it is a shorter book. There are real people in "1984"; this is not true so much of Huxley's novel.

I think what it comes down to is that when trying to get philosophical ideas across in fiction, the rule of "show, don't tell" is especially important. While the characters can discuss philosophical ideas in dialogue successfully (I've seen this done, for example, in Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" detective novels), it is also important to find ways to show the characters living out their various philosophies. Additionally, dialogue exploring philosophical themes has to be very carefully constructed. It has to sound just as natural as a disucssion of how last night's party went. And it can. But it will not work if all the dialogue sounds like Plato.