further on philosophizing in fiction

[marycatelli]

Another problem with abstract ideas over moments is that the moment tend to announce their location -- beginning, middle, end.  Even when you have hashed your concept down to conflict, they do not necessarily lead to an order.


If two characters are thrashing arguments back and forth about whether democracy is a sane form of government, the arguments will arise as they occur to the characters, not in an orderly fashion like a textbook.  Indeed, if it resembles it too much, the readers may reject it as too neat and schematic.

And there may not be a good order to put them in.  Some arguments are better in sequence than in structure.

Plus, of course, the way you've still got to build complications to climax, and keep a sequence of cause-and-effect going to drive the story.  Just because you're deriving it from an abstract argument doesn't let you off on any story requirements.

Comments

[coldhighmountai.livejournal.com]

"If two characters are thrashing arguments back and forth about whether democracy is a sane form of government, the arguments will arise as they occur to the characters, not in an orderly fashion like a textbook."

Here would be a hypothetical conversation between Hitler and Churchill whether democracy or National Socialism would be the sanest form of government. I think a skilled historian/ author could do it.

[marycatelli]

In stories, perhaps best done with an alternate Churchill and Hitler to avoid what is known. . . .

"For over five years this man has been chasing around Europe like a madman in search of something he could set on fire. Unfortunately he again and again finds hirelings who open the gates of their country to this international incendiary. " Adolf Hitler, on the topic of Churchill