Quick View: Philosophy in Fiction

Key word being "quick." 3 novels, 3 philosophies, plus questions - let's go!

Idealism in Homer’s Iliad

According to the Idealist…

The world works according to your ideals. If you’re religious, you’re an idealist – you believe in a god (or gods), and therefore the good are rewarded, the evil are punished, etc. There is some sort of justice/a plan.

From the cover…

The Iliad is typically described as one of the greatest war stories of all time, but to call it a war story does not begin to describe the emotional sweep of its action and characters: Achilles, Helen, Hector, and other heroes of Greek myth and history in the 10th and final year of the Greek siege of Troy…

How it’s idealistic, summarized…

In Homer’s world, everything is the result of godly actions. The gods aren’t perfect beings by any means, so there isn’t necessarily a plan – but at the end of the day, most of the good live. You don’t have to be an optimist to be idealistic – you just need to believe that there’s a higher purpose out there (and those with hubris will meet downfall.)

Existentialism in Dostoevksy's Crime and Punishment

According to the Existentialist…

The world is meaningless/absurd/etc., so you’ve got to create your own meaning: You’ve got to consciously decide on what you live for. Then you can live passionately.

From the cover…

A desperate young man plans the perfect crime -- the murder of a despicable pawnbroker, an old woman no one loves and no one will mourn. Is it not just, he reasons, for a man of genius to commit such a crime, to transgress moral law -- if it will ultimately benefit humanity? So begins one of the greatest novels ever written: a powerful psychological study, a terrifying murder mystery, and a fascinating detective thriller infused with philosophical, religious and social commentary…

How it’s existentialist, summarized…

Raskolnikov, our protagonist, is a complete existentialist (as was Dostoevsky himself.) 23, feverish, and completely mentally unstable, he seeks greatness by committing a murder. He is in contrast to Sonia, a Christian prostitute, and stunning character in her own right. Eventually, Raskolnikov experiences a change of heart, but continues to believe in the creation of his own meaning.

Naturalism in Wells' Island of Doctor Moreau

According to the Naturalist…

The world works according to scientific laws. Morality comes from humans' biological and social evolution rather than divine revelations.

From the cover…

After surviving a shipwreck, Edward Prendick is rescued and brought to the island of Doctor Moreau, exiled from England because of his gruesome experiments in vivisection. What Prendick encounters in the days ahead is more horrible and terrifying than any death he could ever have imagined…

How it’s naturalistic, summarized…

In the story, Prendick goes from idealistic to naturalistic. He lives on Moreau’s island for 10 months and emerges completely changed: He has witnessed near-human creatures revert to animals, and is no longer able to live with others. He isn’t able to study biology, either. In one scene, he even compares a preacher to an Ape-Man speaking “Big Thinks” – ideas he repeats because of their important sound. It’s very creepy, and very believable.

My Questions
Do your characters share any of these ideas? How does this affect their actions? Do they pray frequently, move to the country, murder an old woman... ?

Most of your characters won't be acting so drastically, but questioning your characters' beliefs is important. They're going to act on these, not their ages or hair coloring. Make sure you focus on the important details! (Besides, too much description is tiresome, and you want some details to be left to the reader's imagination - that's part of the fun of a story. Plus, it's too easy to waste time on names and sketches.)

So - what do you think? How do you use philosophy in your fiction? What other examples do you know of?

Great Stories, Part 2: Agreeing on Great Stories

Hesiod, upset at his lack of future fame.

Recently I've been thinking about great stories. 
This is the 2nd of three posts on the topic.

There are many reasons why some stories are rated or regarded highly - in the form of a novel, film, or television episode. Maybe they're told in a unique voice, have an especially engaging plot, are set in an unusual time or place. But why are some more famous than others? Why do only some last? For an example - why are Homer's works famous but not Hesiod's, though from the same culture and time period?

Let's skip thoughts for a second.

In 1998, Modern Library released a list of the 100 Greatest Novels. The list was automatically challenged, leading to the Reader's List and Radcliffe's rival list.

So why was the list challenged?

For one, a number of critics noticed that it focused on North American and European writers. It neglected foreign, lesser-known greats. Others were bothered by the lack of female representation; and one went as far as calling the entire thing a "sales gimmick."

It's a tricky business, rating novels. If you took a public poll, Homer would be rated over Hesiod, simply because his works have resonated more with modern culture. If you asked a group of knowledgeable critics, there would be a squabble. One might even sit to the side in refusal, arguing the two writers were too different to compare. (Not even gonna mention the possibility that Homer was two different people.)

As the man who called the original ML list a "sales gimmick" asked: "How can you quantify something as quicksilver as literature?''

At the end of the day, I'd argue that the key to agreeing on great stories is taking an unbiased and intelligent view. A judge would have to be knowledgeable about each story's medium and its qualities, but couldn't be allowed to have favorites. As I'm sure you can tell, this is pretty impossible. 

Personally, I generally disregard novel lists like Modern Library's. Creating them is just too subjective. (Plus, I'll usually spot one of my favorites below one I hate, then I'll go ranting to anyone who'll listen about it.) Instead, I read what I've heard of - I nearly always go by word-of-mouth (or word-of-blogs, I suppose.)

Even with Shakespeare this applies: Everyone knows he's got to be the greatest worthsmith ever, yet I - someone who reads quite a bit - never stopped to give him a chance until quite recently. It was only my English teacher's enthusiasm for Romeo & Juliet that convinced me to really examine Shakespeare's work... and I'm very glad I did.

What's your opinion? Do you agree with the lists' rankings? Is it possible to "quantify something as quicksilver as literature"? What's your solution?

Great Stories, Part 1: What Makes a Story Great?

This is the first of a 3-post discussion on great stories: “What Makes a Story Great?”, “Agreeing on Great Stories”, and “The Common Quality.”

A few days ago – last Thursday – I got into a conversation with a friend and a former teacher. The friend, who’s a sophomore at my school, has been reading “The Catcher in the Rye” in English.

To just say it: I love, love, love that book. All of Salinger’s stuff, actually. I had this prolonged moment of immense awe at the end of “Franny and Zooey”, a novella of his.

My friend wasn’t quite as moved. She did seem to like the novel, but hadn’t formed much of an opinion on it. She’s this way about most books, not big on critical analysis.

Then there was the teacher. She seriously disliked the book, completely dismissed it from the canon of great lit. Of course, I had a mixed reaction – equal parts shock, confusion, and loud, angry noises – and she somewhat hesitantly explained.

Her idea was that the book just wasn’t very good. It didn’t have any great metaphors; any symbols it contained were far too obvious. And teens mostly liked it because of the cussing.

I tried to explain why I think it’s great – it’s the best depiction of an adolescent EVER (Dostoevsky's "The Adolescent" gets spot #2.) I don’t think the teacher recognized it: She complained about the cussing, but it's crucial to the voice. The story never would have survived if it had been censored, I argued. And even though the sophomore English teacher didn’t especially like teaching the book, it was great for the students. Holden’s voice is attractive to angsty teens, lures them into the kind of critical thought and discussion most kids automatically reject. They want to talk about this book – or a large number of them, anyways.

Something I found interesting was that the teacher who disliked "Catcher" so greatly agreed with me on another novel: Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." I've never actually met - or heard - of someone with criticisms for it (aside from a completely awful character in "The Perks of Being a Wallflower")... So why would one classic be met with such debate, another with such overwhelming love? I'd guess it's got to do with the target audience & style - "Mockingbird" is more of a traditional classic, and it was really quite loving to the South, despite the topic; whereas "Catcher" is, as I've said, totally angsty. And Holden does cuss a lot.

Now for the point: Whether you agree with the teacher, myself, or have an entirely different opinion on this, you've got to ask: What makes a story great? Whether it’s a novel, movie, TV – beyond the basic entertainment, what makes a story last and worth remembering? In the next two posts, I'll try to overview the discussion on this, and provide my own answers.

So - what do you think?