Balancing Philosophy in Fantasy

[Erythr]

I am working on a novel which has tons of fantasy elements (Ethereal beings, other realms, magic all that jazz) but I plan on making the main underlying theme of the story as philosophy. By which I mean that every interaction and event that the main character entangles himself in is related to different philosophical aspects of his life. I am aware lots of sci-fi books and movies deals with answering existential questions by employing science (or pseudo-science) to explain them. However, I want them to be answered by mystical theories instead and the magic system will be rooted with the understanding of the psyche as well.

When I started outlining my novel, I noticed that majority of the story (at least as much as I've written) contains the MC's philosophical dilemma and how he deals with it. The fantasy element like the "other" dimension is not observed until well into the 2nd act (I use the three act structure to get a basic outline of my story). Although this in fact is necessary for the MC's interaction with the fantasy realm, it does not directly play a role despite majority of it contributing to his character arc. I wonder if I'm overdoing it with the philosophical symbolism and I don't want bore my readers to death by overexplaining stuff.

How much of philosophy is considered too much for the fantasy genre? At what point should I dial back on the Aristotle and Socrates? Is it possible to integrate philosophy so well in a fantasy novel that it becomes an integral component of its story? (like the works of Franz Kafka?)

 

[hitmouse]

How much of philosophy is considered too much for the fantasy genre

There is no formal convention in this respect. Fantasy or not, there are some good philosophical novels, and lots of overbearing bombastic ones.
It is not easy.

I have never thought of Kafka as overtly philosophical in the same sense as Sartre or Camus, for example.

 

[The Judge]

For myself, I'd get very antsy very quickly if the characters of a novel are going round spouting/contemplating philosophical concepts which require the author to explain things for me -- I can't tell my Kant from my Kierkegaard, but the last place I want to go for an exposition of their various ideas is a fantasy novel.

So in my view, by all means use your philosophical interests to underpin your characters' motivations and actions, and use symbolism so that those who share your knowledge will understand what point you are making, but for the sake of us who are less well-informed keep things at a simple level and don't have your characters agonise for page after page on questions of free will or whatever. Basically, keep your focus on the characters and want they want/can't have, and keep the plot moving at a fair clip. Then, if you want, have some Book Club type questions at the end of the novel, so that you can there raise the issues and make your readers think -- but entertain them sufficiently first so that they get to the end!

Anyhow, I think this will be get more help over in our Writing Discussion sub-forum, so I'll move it there.

And before I forget, Welcome to the Chrons!

 

[Rob Arnold]

Best thing I can suggest is post something on critiques thread. We can tell you as readers if it's too much or not.

Personally, I think morality, philosophy etc is at the heart of much drama. But obviously the story and the characters have got to hook you and be believable

 

[hitmouse]

Best thing I can suggest is post something on critiques thread. We can tell you as readers if it's too much or not.

Once you have 30 posts.

 

[Randy M.]

As Henry James said, "Dramatize, dramatize, dramatize." Your job, should you decide to take it, is to illustrate your points, not expound/lecture/agonize on them.

This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think if you want a semi-objective guide to how much philosophy is too much, look at Bakker's Second Apocalypse or Walton's The Just City and see how much they use.

However, to be more useful perhaps, there is a piece of writing advice that I particularly love that runs like this

"Every paragraph should either advance the plot, advance our understanding of the characters, or a get an emotional response - and preferably all three"

I adapted it from Terry Rosso's advice, and you'll see other versions of it around, but the main underlying point is always try and get your words to do double- or triple-duty where ever possible. And that applies here. Maybe ask not how much philosophy you can get away with including, but ask how to link the philosophy to the action, the characters, and so on so deeply that most of the story just goes on like normal while you philosophise.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Philosophy that binds magical systems and and individual psyches would make for an interesting world. As with any world building exercise, the key to to have the Goldilocks touch, not too heavy and not too light. This sounds like an interesting approach, I am curious to see how it turns out.

 

[Erythr]

For myself, I'd get very antsy very quickly if the characters of a novel are going round spouting/contemplating philosophical concepts which require the author to explain things for me -- I can't tell my Kant from my Kierkegaard, but the last place I want to go for an exposition of their various ideas is a fantasy novel.

So in my view, by all means use your philosophical interests to underpin your characters' motivations and actions, and use symbolism so that those who share your knowledge will understand what point you are making, but for the sake of us who are less well-informed keep things at a simple level and don't have your characters agonise for page after page on questions of free will or whatever. Basically, keep your focus on the characters and want they want/can't have, and keep the plot moving at a fair clip. Then, if you want, have some Book Club type questions at the end of the novel, so that you can there raise the issues and make your readers think -- but entertain them sufficiently first so that they get to the end!

Anyhow, I think this will be get more help over in our Writing Discussion sub-forum, so I'll move it there.

And before I forget, Welcome to the Chrons!

Thank you very much for the invite as well as your insight. Since I am writing in first-person I'm not going to resort to the Main character foolishly spouting philosophy through-out the story. (Also first person allows more room for the readers to follow his thoughts closely) Majority of the philosophical elements are "sub text" and implied through his "actions". (I am still sticking to the "Show don't tell" for the philosophy as well) Unless the reader thinks twice about a seemingly normal dialogue, they won't be exposed to the "philosophy of change".

What troubled me was, despite wanting the readers to stop and think about these perpetually troubling questions, I wouldn't want them to stop too long such that the tension of a scene is lost. I believe your advice has offered me something to consider. I can weave the philosophy well into the story such that it is mainly a backdrop. So the plot will progress normally without having to surrender its pace for the philosophy. Those who are willing to analyze the story would be able to spot the symbolism and those who can't, can just enjoy the fantastical parts of the story.

Thanks again for the help and I am thrilled to be part of this community.

 

[Erythr]

I think if you want a semi-objective guide to how much philosophy is too much, look at Bakker's Second Apocalypse or Walton's The Just City and see how much they use.

However, to be more useful perhaps, there is a piece of writing advice that I particularly love that runs like this

"Every paragraph should either advance the plot, advance our understanding of the characters, or a get an emotional response - and preferably all three"

I adapted it from Terry Rosso's advice, and you'll see other versions of it around, but the main underlying point is always try and get your words to do double- or triple-duty where ever possible. And that applies here. Maybe ask not how much philosophy you can get away with including, but ask how to link the philosophy to the action, the characters, and so on so deeply that most of the story just goes on like normal while you philosophise.

Thank you for the piece of writing advice. I realize it might've come across silly for me to focus on "hiding the philosophy under the cover" but I am really on the fence regarding whether I should use philosophy as an overtone for the story or make it a vital component in pushing/motivating the plot. Similar to my previous reply, Majority of the philosophical elements are "sub text" and implied through his "actions". (I am still sticking to the "Show don't tell" for the philosophy as well) Unless the reader thinks twice about a seemingly normal dialogue, they won't be exposed to the "philosophy of change".
My query is concerned with how readers would feel if they are presented with an novel that doubles as both a fantastical story about "a boy facing an entire other dimensional race that are nothing more than civilized parasites while undergoing metamorphosis through symbiosis" (a mouthful) or an philosophical outlook on the fundamentals of the transformation of the psyche. Funny thing is both these concepts can stand on their own or at least I think they can but I want to integrate them into a single entity and see how the story evolves.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Terry Goodkind made Objectivism a signature of his work.

 

[Swank]

The Matrix is based on the epistemological idea of "a brain in a vat" (Descartes?). Basing fiction on philosophy doesn't have to happen in the characters' conversations - it can be acted out in the shape of the plot or subplots.

But "philosophy" encompasses everything from thought experiments to ethics to morality to logic. It would be easier to consider @Erythr 's proposal if it was clearer what kind of philosophy he's considering and what the approach is going to be.


It would be enjoyable to structure a book into sections that are demonstrations (or refutations) of different philosophies. The characters would not be aware of it, but the reader would see it from the chapter titles.

 

[The Big Peat]

Thank you for the piece of writing advice. I realize it might've come across silly for me to focus on "hiding the philosophy under the cover" but I am really on the fence regarding whether I should use philosophy as an overtone for the story or make it a vital component in pushing/motivating the plot. Similar to my previous reply, Majority of the philosophical elements are "sub text" and implied through his "actions". (I am still sticking to the "Show don't tell" for the philosophy as well) Unless the reader thinks twice about a seemingly normal dialogue, they won't be exposed to the "philosophy of change".
My query is concerned with how readers would feel if they are presented with an novel that doubles as both a fantastical story about "a boy facing an entire other dimensional race that are nothing more than civilized parasites while undergoing metamorphosis through symbiosis" (a mouthful) or an philosophical outlook on the fundamentals of the transformation of the psyche. Funny thing is both these concepts can stand on their own or at least I think they can but I want to integrate them into a single entity and see how the story evolves.

In which case it sounds like you have an interesting idea and a good sense of how to do it, so crack on. There are big name fantasy books that wear their philosophical overtones openly, not to mention a lot of fantasy readers on the lookout for something new.

 

[Erythr]

The Matrix is based on the epistemological idea of "a brain in a vat" (Descartes?). Basing fiction on philosophy doesn't have to happen in the characters' conversations - it can be acted out in the shape of the plot or subplots.

But "philosophy" encompasses everything from thought experiments to ethics to morality to logic. It would be easier to consider @Erythr 's proposal if it was clearer what kind of philosophy he's considering and what the approach is going to be.


It would be enjoyable to structure a book into sections that are demonstrations (or refutations) of different philosophies. The characters would not be aware of it, but the reader would see it from the chapter titles.

I am truly sorry for making my inquiry vague when seeking advice. The philosophy I plan on targeting in my writing is about "Philosophy of Existence" (coincidentally some of the theories I've read to get an idea on the topic was by Descartes and Spinoza) as well as the "Philosophy of Change" (mostly just Aristotle). Side note: I agree Matrix did a great job balancing its philosophy, in my case, I am doing it with fantasy instead of sci-fi.

However, I am not going to regurgitate these philosophies in my story. Your average philosophy is usually constrained to the reality (as it should be) so when these philosophies are expressed in a fantasy setting (where there exist spirits of the deceased and change means literal metamorphosis) their whole meaning changes. Will existence only explain a state of the living when people "exists" after death? Will change be influenced by desire or the external environment or something else altogether? These are some of the questions I am trying answer.

Sorry for the rambling, getting back on topic. What I am concerned is if it would appeal to the reader if I were to explain these topics? Is there a way to adequately balance the natural story along with the philosophy. (Please share if you do have any pointers) I don't want philosophy to be all of my story but rather I want it to be the crux of it.

 

[Wayne Mack]

What I am concerned is if it would appeal to the reader if I were to explain these topics? Is there a way to adequately balance the natural story along with the philosophy.

Like all things, this comes down to a question of execution. I view the philosophy question as being similar to the theme of the story; the underlying message that provides consistency. I find that when an author has a deep interest in something, that interest will come across to the reader of the story as well. How to express the philosophies to the reader, though, becomes a matter of style. I would say a balance of very explicit and very short references intermixed with more subtle and long running explorations would work best. At the heart of every story is conflict, which could be described as the interaction of two deferring beliefs or philosophies.

There is little in the way of advice that I can give you, just try to keep the story telling in the happy middle. Avoid having sections that appear to be the author telling how much he or she knows and avoid scenes that simply occur without regard to the underlying philosophy. It is a good thing for an author to have some underlying philosophy to explore. The craft of exploring it, however, can only be learned by experience and, unfortunately, some trial and error. Keep writing and just listen to your inner voice telling whether something is too detailed or too vague. Most of all, just have fun with it.

 

[Swank]

Sorry for the rambling, getting back on topic. What I am concerned is if it would appeal to the reader if I were to explain these topics? Is there a way to adequately balance the natural story along with the philosophy. (Please share if you do have any pointers) I don't want philosophy to be all of my story but rather I want it to be the crux of it.

It seems like this could be handled through narrative voice. How the teller of the tale points out the parallels between the plight of the protagonist and a folksy summary of the philosophy that applies. "Just as Aristotle warns, change had come for Gilligan once again." Bad example, but you get the idea.

 

[Erythr]

It seems like this could be handled through narrative voice. How the teller of the tale points out the parallels between the plight of the protagonist and a folksy summary of the philosophy that applies. "Just as Aristotle warns, change had come for Gilligan once again." Bad example, but you get the idea.

Thanks for the tip though I am afraid the story is written in first person so a narrative reference is out of the option. I feel it would be more easier to give the protagonist's understanding of the philosophy through his actions like how many helpful comments have mentioned without explicitly pointing out the philosophers. (maybe it would feel preachy to the readers). Also Gilligan seems like a random name? I wonder what's the reference behind it. Thanks again for humoring me.

 

[Swank]

Thanks for the tip though I am afraid the story is written in first person so a narrative reference is out of the option. I feel it would be more easier to give the protagonist's understanding of the philosophy through his actions like how many helpful comments have mentioned without explicitly pointing out the philosophers. (maybe it would feel preachy to the readers). Also Gilligan seems like a random name? I wonder what's the reference behind it. Thanks again for humoring me.

You could still do it - the first person narrator is telling his story in hindsight and has gained perspective in the intervening period. Especially if the narrator is the type to occasionally break the 4th wall and address the reader. But I can see how that would mean a change in tone that you might not care for.

As a plot device, it might actually be interesting for the narrator to suspect that her past activities were somehow influenced or shaped by philosophers' writings, like they were destinies aimed at her. Ala "Stranger than Fiction". The protagonist is trapped in a series of philosophies that they later become aware of after they have played out in her life. That could be an actual destiny, or just a delusion of the narrator.

 

[Erythr]

Like all things, this comes down to a question of execution. I view the philosophy question as being similar to the theme of the story; the underlying message that provides consistency. I find that when an author has a deep interest in something, that interest will come across to the reader of the story as well. How to express the philosophies to the reader, though, becomes a matter of style. I would say a balance of very explicit and very short references intermixed with more subtle and long running explorations would work best. At the heart of every story is conflict, which could be described as the interaction of two deferring beliefs or philosophies.

There is little in the way of advice that I can give you, just try to keep the story telling in the happy middle. Avoid having sections that appear to be the author telling how much he or she knows and avoid scenes that simply occur without regard to the underlying philosophy. It is a good thing for an author to have some underlying philosophy to explore. The craft of exploring it, however, can only be learned by experience and, unfortunately, some trial and error. Keep writing and just listen to your inner voice telling whether something is too detailed or too vague. Most of all, just have fun with it.

That's a really interesting take on the matter. And your advice was most helpful. Targeting exploration of the concept rather than explanation of the philosophy, would be a very key detail for me to keep in mind. I do believe that the readers will follow "Death of the Author" in order to interpret my story so I think I will keep some of the questions open ended so that they can perceive it the way they want. Especially without being directly influenced by my views. Your explanation really gave me an idea on how to make my novel a more interactive medium. Thank you.

 

[Erythr]

You could still do it - the first person narrator is telling his story in hindsight and has gained perspective in the intervening period. Especially if the narrator is the type to occasionally break the 4th wall and address the reader. But I can see how that would mean a change in tone that you might not care for.

As a plot device, it might actually be interesting for the narrator to suspect that her past activities were somehow influenced or shaped by philosophers' writings, like they were destinies aimed at her. Ala "Stranger than Fiction". The protagonist is trapped in a series of philosophies that they later become aware of after they have played out in her life. That could be an actual destiny, or just a delusion of the narrator.

Woah that seems like an really creative concept. However, the main drive of my story is still fantasy which revolves around the aspects I've mentioned above: a fantastical story about "a boy facing an entire other dimensional race that are nothing more than civilized parasites while undergoing metamorphosis through symbiosis" (a mouthful) or an philosophical outlook on the fundamentals of the transformation of the psyche.

I had considered fourth wall breaks in the earlier drafts but I felt my scenes were too fragile to risk interfering with the suspension disbelief of the readers. Also like you've mentioned, the tone I am going for is a bit somber so I am afraid that switching the focus might interrupt the flow. Still it was a really compelling thought. I haven't heard of "Stranger than Fiction". I would like to read it sometime in the future. Side note: You've actually kind of inspired a twist for my story. Hint: Observing your own life as it plays out before your eyes while confined to your own body unable to do anything. (kind of cliché but it works differently from the context of the story. )