Balancing Philosophy in Fantasy

[sknox]

Can you give an example of the "philosophical aspects" of your MC's life? Just one example would do. I look at my own life and while I can spot ethical issues, moral issues, I have a harder time identifying any of my actions or choices that involved philosophy. Maybe I'm just not picturing the right sort of thing?

 

[Erythr]

Can you give an example of the "philosophical aspects" of your MC's life? Just one example would do. I look at my own life and while I can spot ethical issues, moral issues, I have a harder time identifying any of my actions or choices that involved philosophy. Maybe I'm just not picturing the right sort of thing?

Sure, let me try explaining as clearly as possible without divulging too much.
Silas the protagonist (it is in first person) is challenged by how he perceives change around him. It is something he despises (for reasons related to his past) and his hobby, photography, stems from this hatred. All he ever wants to do is to freeze those moments most dear to him in time through his viewfinder. Seek comfort in familiarity and oppose any alternative. He belief is rooted in the philosophical works of Plato and Parmenides
"Plato said that real things (Forms) don’t change, and restricted change to the realm of appearances—the physical world. Parmenides went farther still, denying the existence of change altogether."

Cue the conflict, the introduction of an ethereal being (daemon) capable of metamorphizing its host. Side note: There are several earlier mentions of metamorphism including his sister's pet monarch caterpillars (interesting to note that they are poisonous). Symbolism aside. A question arises, How can someone defy change when it is a part of them? Is change really a path to fulfillment or an obstacle to overcome in order to reach the said fulfillment? (I mentioned fulfilment because there is an whole another philosophical overtone about existence and realization)

The whole point of writing this way is to examine normal philosophical concepts which are usually constrained to reality, in the fantasy setting of the story. How existence can be redefined as not just a part of living but also encompasses the spirits of the deceased. Hope this helped get a better idea about what my story is trying to portray using philosophy.

 

[hitmouse]

@Erythr Have you read Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder? It is a mystery story which is also an overt discussion of philosophical history. Is was a bestseller about 20 years ago, and generated a lot of column inches. Personally I found it dull, but it may be worth considering if you want to see how this sort of thing can be successfully executed.

 

[Erythr]

@Erythr Have you read Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder? It is a mystery story which is also an overt discussion of philosophical history. Is was a bestseller about 20 years ago, and generated a lot of column inches. Personally I found it dull, but it may be worth considering if you want to see how this sort of thing can be successfully executed.

Oh I haven't heard of "Sophie's World". Thanks for the recommendation. I just did a quick search and saw that its plot offers promise. Seems like the book was translated into English and tons of other languages after its release in Norwegian. I might find myself a copy of this book but after reading its blurb, I feel that it has a different approach with philosophy in its forefront. While I am trying to keep it as the backbone of my fantasy based story. Adding to it the fact that you found it dull deters my confidence. I want my novel to target all readers and not just people who have a knack for philosophy. Even without the philosophy, I want it to still be enjoyable. (a little too ambitious perhaps?) Still there is no harm giving the book a read to get familiar with the different philosophies. Thanks again for reaching out to me with suggestions.

 

[DLCroix]

I think that the first thing you should do is clarify the theory that you are going to expose, because the author of a novel knows that he must be prepared to defend, as a first thing, the very coherence of the novel in terms of fulfilling the premises of the novel. the plot, mainly that the conflict of the story is resolved, a certain evolution of the characters is appreciated (the path of the hero is by far one of the most addressed treatments in most stories) and there are no formal contradictions within the text same as confusing the timeline of the story or getting the names of characters wrong, for example. So, figure out if the underlying philosophical thought in your story is also controversial or not well exposed or even easy to attack by the eternal nerds of the fandom. That they are legion, they are usually very well informed about almost everything and are especially fierce with every detail.

Then, in the manner of Descartes, organize this information well, for which I suggest that you divide it into doses and study how it can be inserted into the text of the novel, either through proverbs, jokes (the wisdom of humor is certainly impressive) and, as far as possible, avoid dialogues in which one character expresses a philosophical concern and a second character actually releases a true theoretical discourse that, deep down, is nothing more than the author himself speaking but also one of the errors that with greater speed it makes the readers flee. As a side note, this problem is also experienced by the authors of hard fiction who have no greater knowledge of science fiction or less of fantasy but instead have abundant scientific theory and believe that it is enough to fill pages of it without noticing that they are boring, and incredibly, to the poor reader.

For the rest, this philosophical ramblings in novels are not so unusual. Take, for example, what Michel Houllebecq does in particular in Atomised. However, this type of novel is also often known as the literature of ideas and one of its characteristics is that they are heavy books with little dialogue and action, since obviously the supposed suspension of disbelief, that pact that is established between author and reader, it assumes that the exposure (what elsewhere they call data dumps) will be the constant. Something that, in my opinion, is not so typical of fantasy novels, since they use more the sense of wonder, they obviously portray exotic worlds (which requires dedicating space for their corresponding presentation or description) and in reality the action , intrigue and adventure are the keynote. Which leads me to think that a fantasy story may not be the most appropriate format. In addition, fantasy is usually pigeonholed into a rather YA audience.

 

[hitmouse]

I found Atomised to be a an enjoyable, easy read, rather than a heavy tome. There is a distinct and quite provocative moral/philosophical slant, but this is integrated into the story rather than as exposition. It is repeated in Houellebecq’s other books.

I suppose JG Ballard does something similar.

 

[Erythr]

I think that the first thing you should do is clarify the theory that you are going to expose, because the author of a novel knows that he must be prepared to defend, as a first thing, the very coherence of the novel in terms of fulfilling the premises of the novel. the plot, mainly that the conflict of the story is resolved, a certain evolution of the characters is appreciated (the path of the hero is by far one of the most addressed treatments in most stories) and there are no formal contradictions within the text same as confusing the timeline of the story or getting the names of characters wrong, for example. So, figure out if the underlying philosophical thought in your story is also controversial or not well exposed or even easy to attack by the eternal nerds of the fandom. That they are legion, they are usually very well informed about almost everything and are especially fierce with every detail.

Then, in the manner of Descartes, organize this information well, for which I suggest that you divide it into doses and study how it can be inserted into the text of the novel, either through proverbs, jokes (the wisdom of humor is certainly impressive) and, as far as possible, avoid dialogues in which one character expresses a philosophical concern and a second character actually releases a true theoretical discourse that, deep down, is nothing more than the author himself speaking but also one of the errors that with greater speed it makes the readers flee. As a side note, this problem is also experienced by the authors of hard fiction who have no greater knowledge of science fiction or less of fantasy but instead have abundant scientific theory and believe that it is enough to fill pages of it without noticing that they are boring, and incredibly, to the poor reader.

For the rest, this philosophical ramblings in novels are not so unusual. Take, for example, what Michel Houllebecq does in particular in Atomised. However, this type of novel is also often known as the literature of ideas and one of its characteristics is that they are heavy books with little dialogue and action, since obviously the supposed suspension of disbelief, that pact that is established between author and reader, it assumes that the exposure (what elsewhere they call data dumps) will be the constant. Something that, in my opinion, is not so typical of fantasy novels, since they use more the sense of wonder, they obviously portray exotic worlds (which requires dedicating space for their corresponding presentation or description) and in reality the action , intrigue and adventure are the keynote. Which leads me to think that a fantasy story may not be the most appropriate format. In addition, fantasy is usually pigeonholed into a rather YA audience.

All points you've mentioned are fairly valid. Thank you for taking your time to draft roughly 500 words worth of advice. I understand it is really hard to fathom a fantasy genre book as a source of philosophy. I think I need to pay special attention to the concerns you've pointed out. Let me try addressing them one by one or at least offer an explanation on how I am going to go about writing it. Please feel free to highlight any errors I might make or suggest a better alternative.

Firstly, I am not going to be stating existing philosophical theories in my story. My story will not be a fanservice for the philosophy geeks or a collection of philosopher's works. For me that betrays lack of originality and has already been done before. Like I mentioned in my previous comments, a philosophical thought in this modern world is usually restricted to what already exists in our reality. What I am trying to explore is the implication of such ideas in a world with widely different norms. (Hence the fantasy setting) Just like how we can't apply the laws of physics in your typical Harry Potter book (don't @ me). You can assume the same for philosophy about life, change and existence. Example mentioned in my previous comments. This is the central target of my book. However, I am building up on existing philosophies by Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, credit will be given. I am no philosopher but I am a writer so introducing philosophy for daemons is part of the job. Also a way for me to avoid attack by fandom nerds

Secondly, everything you've mentioned about the character development is true. So that's why the philosophy of change is directly rooted in the MC's character development both literally and metaphorical from the context of the novel.

Thirdly, top-notch suggestions about implementing humor. I am definitely a fan of good satire. So I got that covered.

Fourthly, I think you might've misunderstood the term "Suspension of disbelief" (I could be wrong) It is in fact a pact between an author and the reader but that is not for justifying/approving info dumps. No matter what the genre, info dumps/exposition is analyzed critically by the readers. Author have to thread lightly. Suspension of disbelief is an agreement between the author and the reader such that the reader would not overanalyze a story element with basis of reality. Example: You won't take a fantasy novel and complain about the fact that there exists elves, fairies ogres etc. You suspend your disbelief (in the fantastical elements) so that you can enjoy the story without thinking about the plausibility of that stuff. This is kind of the very reason why suspension of disbelief is crucial in fantasy and sci-fi genre as opposed to non-fiction.

Finally, whether it fantasy genre is good medium for philosophical outlook. Umm...I don't know honestly. (Probably why I made this thread in the first place.) That's all the more reason for me to try writing this story. Amazing stories have always been accredited because their author was willing to take risks. "The Road Not Taken" (you know if you know) was always the path for creativity and I hope that wading into unfamiliar waters doesn't drown me. Side note: I guess I need to add "Atomized" to my reading list. Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[hitmouse]

Can I recommend The Damned Busters by Matthew Hughes? Fantasy, humour, demons, morality all wrapped up in a very good read.

 

[hitmouse]

Another one to think about is Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. The moral dilemmas of an angel and a demon.

In fact Terry Pratchett is pretty good at this sort of thing in general.

 

[AllanR]

I understand it is really hard to fathom a fantasy genre book as a source of philosophy.

Not hard at all, some universities teach courses on this exact idea. (though Sci-fi is more often used than fantasy)

Philosophical fiction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DLCroix]

Well, it's difficult, because also the plot, even if you have it sketched, always changes mainly due to things in the story itself: you can come up with another solution for a scene, for example. Anyway, I still think that it will help you to think about your line of fundamental premises in order to establish, as if they were principles that can be expressed in a single sentence, not as many as you want, but the ones that you see fit best. For example, in the fable of the frog and the scorpion the moral principle (or teaching) is deduced from the story, Aesop does not explain it. In fact this system is the one that gave rise to literature itself, from the allegory to the ode, the epic poem or song, from there to the abstract exposition and everything else. But the problem is that today people don't have the predisposition to be preached to, many can't even stand their parents... To also find them in a book. They call it evasion for a reason, right?

Which brings me, by the way, to the question of your narrator, and perhaps explains why Houllebecq, Gibson, Pérez-Reverte, Vargas Llosa, Borges, Bolaño, Bradbury, K. Dick, etc., almost always use omniscient narrators precisely because first-person narrators are limited. Unless, of course, they speak in retrospect and then it is the wisdom of the years, or what they learned later through other characters, that allows them to affirm things that were impossible for them to know at the time.

In any case, arm yourself with patience, because the best thing when writing is that you first feel comfortable, that is the mayonnaise of the matter, because if you enjoy what you are writing that will give you ease, creativity and freshness and therefore the reader will also enjoy reading. But to get to that, you have to climb a huge gap that only the years give so that it occurs almost automatically, because at that point the author no longer cares about things of narrative voice or style, he just writes.

 

[sknox]

>credit will be given
You certainly can go that route, but you can also simply use your knowledge of philosophy as framework and inspiration, without needing to name particular philosophers or their works. In the example you provided (for which, thanks), the MC's beliefs can be rooted in nothing more (or less) profound than personal experience. It's how he sees the world. Then things happen that challenge that view and he must respond. This is something plenty of your readers will have experienced. Parmenides need do nothing more than lurk off-stage. Plato can work the lights. Readers with a knowledge of philosophy will recognize what's going on and will like it all the more. Most readers love to think themselves clever.

Anyway, I second what's been said here. Philosophical concepts wrapped in fantasy are not so rare as you think. Just go ahead and write the novel!

 

[Erythr]

>credit will be given
You certainly can go that route, but you can also simply use your knowledge of philosophy as framework and inspiration, without needing to name particular philosophers or their works. In the example you provided (for which, thanks), the MC's beliefs can be rooted in nothing more (or less) profound than personal experience. It's how he sees the world. Then things happen that challenge that view and he must respond. This is something plenty of your readers will have experienced. Parmenides need do nothing more than lurk off-stage. Plato can work the lights. Readers with a knowledge of philosophy will recognize what's going on and will like it all the more. Most readers love to think themselves clever.

Anyway, I second what's been said here. Philosophical concepts wrapped in fantasy are not so rare as you think. Just go ahead and write the novel!

Sure I agree it's not really anything new and I plan on writing with my own understanding of philosophy in mind. Though since I derived inspiration from their works, it is only right if I at least mention them. The premise for my book isn't groundbreaking or anything of that sort but it's not something I've seen a lot. Since religion, tradition, culture, and politics are introduced in a fantasy realm (thank you G.R.R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkien) while exploring its diversity and how different it is from reality. I thought maybe I could do the same with philosophy. Thank you for the encouragement and greenlighting it.

 

[Erythr]

Not hard at all, some universities teach courses on this exact idea. (though Sci-fi is more often used than fantasy)

Philosophical fiction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep trying something (kind of) new with pure fantasy this time. It is a bumper that there are very few books from the 21st century. I am aware of the works of Franz Kafka though (a fan of his)

 

[DLCroix]

However, a first method to find a shortcut is to set mental goals. For example:
1. I must ensure that my narrator only states the facts (where there is a metaphysical question in the middle) whether he or the characters, not analyze them.
Well, that's enough. The reader is intelligent enough to guess the rest for himself. In addition, care must be taken when the narrator begins to advise the reader, even when using a character telling it to another as a pretext, since this is very close to pamphlet or propaganda. That is, you have to be persuasive as if it were a letter to a lover, not an exhortation.
2. I must try to create a narrator that is funny or even ironic but never hypocritical.
In line with the above, remember just why your grandfather or an uncle drove you crazy. Because he knew how to be silly or sometimes even frivolous, he did not try to convince you of anything, he told the stories as a fun adventure, he taught with joy.
3. I must not want to cover everything with a single novel.
Unless you're an octopus. And sometimes not even like that.
Etc.

 

[AllanR]

not sure what you mean by

pure fantasy

sandals and sorcery? elves and dwarves? kings and dragons?

check out The Tragedy of Man - Wikipedia --I'd call it fantasy, but that's me.

 

[Erythr]

not sure what you mean by


sandals and sorcery? elves and dwarves? kings and dragons?

check out The Tragedy of Man - Wikipedia --I'd call it fantasy, but that's me.

Yes, it encompasses that and is not restricted to it. "The Tragedy of Man" is definitely fantasy. I had read it a few years back and the concept is pretty ingenious despite the play format making it very hard to read.

 

[Rob Arnold]

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.

A great example is the section in A Song Of Ice And Fire, where the Kindly Man explains to Arya the History of the Faceless Man, and how the first Faceless Man arose from the slave mines of Valyria. Finally, he heavily hints that they caused the Doom of Valyria. What I think that passage illustrates is the above ethos, it advances plot, since Arya is learning about the cult she is joining, it has a philosophical angle, we are made to ask "Is it justified for an entire civilisation to be wiped out, when that civilisation are a bunch of slavers?" Finally for me it got an emotional response, somewhere between sorrow and elation, as I pictured these slaves, becoming Faceless Men, and freeing some through the release of death, and others, quite literally, through finally killing the Masters.

 

[Rob Arnold]

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. )

If you haven't read it, give Paul Auster's City of Glass trilogy a go. It isn't fantasy, but it is fantastic, and it is very philosophical while at the same time being a gripping story.

 

[Erythr]

If you haven't read it, give Paul Auster's City of Glass trilogy a go. It isn't fantasy, but it is fantastic, and it is very philosophical while at the same time being a gripping story.

I haven't read it, Thanks for the recommendation. I don't discriminate between fantasy and non-fantasy genres It's good to have books to study how they implement philosophy within the story.