How much of philosophy for fiction?

[SEVERUSMAX]

Taking the theme from the author thread about the petulant young writer, I wonder how much of our own world-view really gets into our stories/books?

Anyone care to answer this one?

 

[sr71plt]

Again, there's nothing for me to pick on this list. My fictin is written across a very wide spectrum. Some of it is very close to my philosophy. For variety sake, though, some of has none of my philosophy in it at all.

 

[Corylea]

Even when I'm trying to write about things far from my experience, my worldview comes through. I don't always put it in there intentionally, but if I'm trying to write a sympathetic character, they partake of qualities that I find endearing, and if I'm trying to write a villain, they partake of qualities I hate.

 

[Weird Harold]

Again, there's nothing for me to pick on this list. My fictin is written across a very wide spectrum. Some of it is very close to my philosophy. For variety sake, though, some of has none of my philosophy in it at all.

Likewise.

In fact, I have written things from a world-view that is totally incompatible with my personal views because that's what the story required.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Each of us works from our own epistemology, which is the bedrock of all philosophy. So the correct answer to the question is ALWAYS.

 

[past_perfect]

I answered some, since I sneak it in intentionally on occasions, but for the most part I'm avoiding it, as there is the distinct possibility that I'd put everyone to sleep with it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A lot. Even in my wildest works of fiction, they're still my ideas and opinions, even when I'm playing devil's advocate. The things my characters find repulsive are the things I find repulsive, just as the things that get them off are the things that get me off.

Why would I write about things that didn't interest me?

 

[gauchecritic]

Only in the humour category, where it is overt.

Everything else depends almost entirely on the character(s).

Can I write characters that don't contain me? I like to think so.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I've written so few stories that it will take a long time before I get the rant out of my system.

But trying not to be a complete bore, I aim for no more than "some".

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not nearly accomplished enough to avoid it.

Fucking is good. Orgasms are good. Bringing other people to orgasm is good. They don't call it "making love" for nothing.

See what I mean?

 

[Recidiva]

Mine's pretty much all me.

Since I try to only write what I know, if I can't think it, I don't write it.

I know the world can be dismal, cruel and vicious. But I find myself less able to put that to paper. It's almost as if the Heinleinian "ficton" is a real thing, and an act of creation. I try to create something positive.

I try to portray options to any "typical" mindset that might be common, and portray the more uncommon options available. At least emotionally, if not otherwise.

 

[sr71plt]

Each of us works from our own epistemology, which is the bedrock of all philosophy. So the correct answer to the question is ALWAYS.

No. As both Wierd Harold and I mentioned, a fiction writer has the option to write entirely outside his/her personal philosophy. There's nothing that traps fiction writer into her/his own worldview beyond a lack of talent as a writer. It's what makes the difference between an accomplished fiction writer and a dabbler.

 

[3113]

No. As both Wierd Harold and I mentioned, a fiction writer has the option to write entirely outside his/her personal philosophy. There's nothing that traps fiction writer into her/his own worldview beyond a lack of talent as a writer. It's what makes the difference between an accomplished fiction writer and a dabbler.

Very true. We can say with certainty that John Milton wanted Satan to be the villain in Paradise Lost and wanted everyone cheering for the side of god, and in despair that Eve would listen to this villain and take the apple, etc.

And yet, everyone who reads Paradise Lost will agree that Satan is the most compelling character; the most completely realized and understood. In playing, literally, Devil's advocate in the argument, and writing outside his personal philosophy, Milton managed to created one of the most famous characters in English literature.

I will add, however, that there are accomplished writers who do not write outside their personal philosophy. Not writing outside one's philosophy doesn't automatically mean one isn't accomplish, so long as the reader feels that the writer *could* write outside the philosophy if they wanted to.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No. As both Wierd Harold and I mentioned, a fiction writer has the option to write entirely outside his/her personal philosophy. There's nothing that traps fiction writer into her/his own worldview beyond a lack of talent as a writer. It's what makes the difference between an accomplished fiction writer and a dabbler.

I'm thinking it's not the writing talent that creates this trap -- it's a limited ability to perceive other worldviews. At least, this morning.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm thinking it's not the writing talent that creates this trap -- it's a limited ability to perceive other worldviews. At least, this morning.

I think that some on this thread are too influenced by James Joyce's outlook. His belief that truly accomplished writing left the reader with no idea of the author's real views seems to me nothing more than a personal conceit. I mean, why should we believe one writer? Who he? So if you can gracefully put only your own thoughts into your story, are you less graceful? Why? Let us not get as silly about this as we have been about politics, please?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

You cant write outside your worldview without experience....unless its science fiction youre writing.

 

[Recidiva]

I think that some on this thread are too influenced by James Joyce's outlook. His belief that truly accomplished writing left the reader with no idea of the author's real views seems to me nothing more than a personal conceit. I mean, why should we believe one writer? Who he? So if you can gracefully put only your own thoughts into your story, are you less graceful? Why? Let us not get as silly about this as we have been about politics, please?

I think this is a bit of a conceit like "journalistic objectivity." Everyone has a point of view. Try to be completely objective and you're left with...an inadequately presented object. Unsatisfying. Like food with no flavor.

I find I'm not interested in stories that can't find any sort of emotional theme that I can hold onto and follow its pulse.

Certainly a single human being can create conflict even from internal voices and opposing thoughts. I have tons of those. I can argue pro or con and be Devil's Advocate with ease.

I don't think that objectivity is an ideal you can reach. But I do think that telling an entertaining story and not being issue driven, not preaching, is to be admired.

I don't try to teach with my writing, I try to tell a story. I do try to edit out when I'm obviously fumbling with issues I don't understand, because that's when preaching happens. Your own lack of understanding becomes illustrated by the force of your internal obsessions and fears. Literary overcompensation.

That's why I find it better to write what I know, and not what I want to know. Because one I can do, the other is my therapy and I don't think I need to subject anyone to that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VM

Joyce's view is a sissy cop-out.

People like Sinclair Lewis had strong opinions and expressed those opinions thru their stories. Its the reason Lewis and Steinbeck and others won Nobel Prizes.

 

[gauchecritic]

SR71PLT

You cant write outside your worldview without experience....unless its science fiction youre writing.

I don't get your point JB. You can't write anything without experience.

Are you saying you have to change sex to write from the opposite pov?

 

[sr71plt]

I'm thinking it's not the writing talent that creates this trap -- it's a limited ability to perceive other worldviews. At least, this morning.

I agree. After I posted what I did, I thought I should have pointed to a lack of imagination as the block to being able to write outside your own philiosophy (if you want to). I can't imagine anyone being able to write fiction well if they don't have sufficient imagination to break through their own base pilosophies.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

You cant write outside your worldview without experience....unless its science fiction youre writing.

Bullshit. Perhaps YOU can't, but I certainly can.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Your claim is the hallmark of psychosis.

 

[freshface]

I think that some on this thread are too influenced by James Joyce's outlook. His belief that truly accomplished writing left the reader with no idea of the author's real views seems to me nothing more than a personal conceit. I mean, why should we believe one writer? Who he? So if you can gracefully put only your own thoughts into your story, are you less graceful? Why? Let us not get as silly about this as we have been about politics, please?

James Joyce seemed to believe that abstract writing was as compelling as abstract art. I think he failed, but that's a topic for another thread. I would say that if you can only write from your worldview, you would have a pretty poor imagination that would reflect in your writing.

No. As both Wierd Harold and I mentioned, a fiction writer has the option to write entirely outside his/her personal philosophy. There's nothing that traps fiction writer into her/his own worldview beyond a lack of talent as a writer. It's what makes the difference between an accomplished fiction writer and a dabbler.

I think that trap is the key word here. If you are only capable of writing in your own worldview, that might indicate a limitation. That's not the same as choosing to write within your own worldview.

Of course, this all might depend on how you choose to define worldview. I'm a GenX woman. If I write a story from the POV of a narcissistic man who behaves completely out of character for me, is that writing from a different worldview? Does someone else have a different definition?

 

[sr71plt]

I think that trap is the key word here. If you are only capable of writing in your own worldview, that might indicate a limitation. That's not the same as choosing to write within your own worldview.

I agree on the choosing to write one way or the other being key. Of course, anyone who argues that one can't write outside one's worldview simply because they lack the imagination and talent to do so is another story.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FRESHFACE

I cant imagine how you'd write about cannibalism or Eskimoism or homosexualism or infantile paralysis without some experience. But I can write about the sick feeling I had when I killed someone, and what I observed. I know what its like to crawl thru rocket and mortar explosions and buildings engulfed in flames. I know what its like to almost die from a head injury. I know what ether induced hallucination is like. I know what its like to piss on an electric fence.

I can describe birth, but I have no idea what a woman experiences....a woman told me its like squeezing a large chicken between your lips. OUCH.