What is a novel and fiction anyway?

A good author to look at is Michael Ende. I think he employs some of the most sophisticated and profound philosophical ideas in such simplicity that even a child can understand. Check out 'Momo' and 'The Never Ending Story', they'll provide you with plenty of inspiration.

The Borges Test, Alex Nevala-Lee

J.L. Borges belief in compression for the conveyance of ideas is probably valuable. This is the age of a great textual flood (babble). I'm still struck by what could possibly be extrapolated from Borges' Library of Babel. Each of works in his short story collection Labyrinths modify and expand the way we think about the others.

Though if you are writing a work purely for yourself, you're free to do as you please.

Calvino on Borges

Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Steinbeck, most Victorian lit., Sartre, Woolf, Maugham.... To name a few authors.

A philosophical novel needs a good plot, interesting characters, convincing dialogue, and so forth. The plot and the characters should lead in a compelling way to the philosophical content. If characters start philosophizing in an unmotivated way, you can end up with something like Monte Python's cleaning 'ladies' launching into discussions of Kant. By Python, it's very funny. That probably wouldn't be your intent, but if it was -- that would be fine too.

So, writing a philosophical novel is like writing a novel. Give it a whirl. If you turn out something as good as Brothers Karamazov, great. If it's just for yourself, that's good too. The process is probably more important than the finished product.

Are these novelists explicitly philosophical?

What do you mean by "explicitly"? They all incorporate lengthy philosophical dialogues or monologues. The Russians tend to dive more deeply into their philosophical heritage.

I think Alice in Wonderland is great for stimulating the imagination. I quite like that format each scenario and character interaction provokes the imagination or thought. There is no lengthy diversionary prose and you are left with lots of images.

There lots of topics I would be interested in exploring. Responsibility, Parenting, meaning, philosophy of mind and language, Economics, property and ownership, war, depression and anxiety .

I have started one story that I have paused for a long time while I debate it's validity to myself. It is about someone who does not want to fight in World War 1 and doesn't feel responsible to have to fight and debates the ethics of it.

Did the authors explicitly claim to be exploring a well known philosophical issue? Like Morality without God. Theism vs Atheism. The meaning of Language. Social norms. Infinity etc

I rad Anna Karenina years ago but I can't remember if it stimulated philosophical thought in me. I have read Charles Dickens and see him as a Social campaigner.

I want to write something explicit which reads as an argument for an explicit position or an exploration of a debate. I wouldn't want to be to lengthy, archaic or verbose.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think if you are going to write a book it should offer a new perspective or be a modern take on something old.

I am interested in The Self and I have been unhappy and unconvinced by what people have written on this topic

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

A good philosophical novel makes you question your introspect and look at your own presuppositions

Start with an accurate use of pronouns. — tim wood

When I say "You" I mean "a person" or "One" but I find the use of "one" quite archaic.

Like the Queen talking of "One's subjects"

Do you have any thoughts about your theme? — tim wood

My theme would probably involve some kind of journey and an introspection on one's mental states and place in reality. It would probably involve someone in opposition to something.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

They're not single issue books, if that's what you want. Yes, they are long, but that's how they get to the heart of a lot of issues without being shallow and flakey.

Anna Karenina is one of the greatest novels ever written. It explores themes of marriage, justice, loyalty, faith, responsibility toward society versus the self.... And so on. I'm afraid you just weren't reading carefully if you couldn't see any of that.

Dickens explored social issues, true, but since there's literally a whole branch of SOCIAL-POLITICAL philosophy, I'm not sure how that makes it unphilosophical.

Honestly, if your book fails to explore social-politcal dimensions of warfare... It's bound to be pretty narrow and just scratching the surface. But hey. Maybe that's what you're going for.

Anna Karenina is one of the greatest novels ever written. It explores themes of marriage, justice, loyalty, faith, responsibility toward society versus the self.... And so on. I'm afraid you just weren't reading carefully if you couldn't see any of that. — NKBJ

I read it years ago before I study philosophy. I cannot remember much of it.

Can you cite specific philosophical point made in it? What was its stance on marriage?

I think a book should be fairly enjoyable and fairly easy to read and explicit if it wants to engage with a point.

My book that I started about World war one was using the war and conscription to argue against anyone having responsibility to their society or parents but rather the reverse About the futility of sacrifice. The integrity of self. About the pointlessness of suffering. About fear and mental health related to existential anxiety.

AK shows marriage to be complicated. It also shows that it requires a certain sense of giving up personal freedom. It locates happiness for most people within these confines, however, and shows that many people who seek more freedom eventually regret it. But there's a lot more complexity to it than I'm describing, because life is complex.

Easy is relative. Most "easy" books are simplistic and don't really dig beyond the surface of things. You can challenge yourself to grow and then "hard" books, like War and Peace actually become easier reads.

My book that I started about World war one was using the war and conscription to argue against anyone having responsibility to their society or parents but rather the reverse About the futility of sacrifice. The integrity of self. About the pointlessness of suffering. About fear and mental health related to existential anxiety. — Andrew4Handel

If you're going to engage on the mammoth task of writing any novel, never mind a philosophical one, you should probably begin by at least demonstrating an ability to construct some well-formed paragraphs in your posts here or no-one with any sensitivity to the rhythms of the language as expressed by any decent author will be able to get past the first page of your proposed project. I know I wouldn't if it were written like the above. In other words, in order to write a work of any kind, even of the most modest kind, you have to be able to write.

A philosophy book is a book used to promote and idea or ideas wich encompasses loads of books. My favorite are man's surche for meaning, and every time I find the meaning of life they change it. I read these books and are my favorite. However I don't like books from the logic rules all or of the philosophy of religion. The logic rules all are terrible with pathos and ethos part of the argument. The books on the philosophy of religion are more like hate speech against one another instead what thay should be. One thing you should consider is the aduence. Are you trying to target the uneducated (for lack of a better turm) that will belive the loudest bark or someone like me who will keep your argument in mind or are you just trying to start a debate.

Also, I'd recommend against trying to write a "philosophical novel". It's likely to come out contrived, derivative and unengaging. Better off to just write on something, anything that means a lot to you and maybe it'll turn out philosophical enough for others. (On the other hand, doing it just as a mental exercise or form of therapy for yourself if that's all you want might be a good learning experience. Personally, I find writing very therapeutic.)

It would be more something like this.

"Matthew stared at the at the heap of papers on his desk. It suddenly struck him that maybe this was all completely pointless. He tried to repress this thought for the rest of the day."

Alice in Wonderland is great. I need to reread it.

Some science fiction books rise to the level of philosophical novels and they are good stories to boot. I read several sci fi titles by Ursula Le Guin which had some good solid philosophical content.

The main thing is to write and keep writing, and don't throw away stuff that you have written because you think it isn't any good. Just keep writing. Producing a good book takes a lot of sitting still at a desk and working away. Practice, practice, practice...

Also, be a bit shy about showing stuff to random people. No matter what you write, many people will shoot you down and there is nothing helpful about that. Writers need encouragement, not withering criticism. Once you become a famous established writer, then you can open yourself up to withering reviews.

I am presently reading The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. It starts with the Devil arguing with Soviet intellectuals about Kant's "proofs" of transcendence. It also presents a story about Pontius Pilate that is "philosophical." So, it is a dark comedy that makes the reader nervous to find out what awful thing will happen next. But, darn it, what happens next?

I think that is a quality that was minted in American Science Fiction through the likes of Kornbluth and Philip K. Dick. And those works were "thought experiments" in the direct sense of the word. Perhaps a genre distinction is needed between the fatalistic observations of Dostoevsky and Kafka and the "what if" of other writers.

That's sounds OK. My suggestion simply is that if you want to be a writer, try to maintain, first and foremost, a consistently high level of quality in everything you write, including your posts here. That type of discipline will bleed positively into your work.

If you're going to engage on the mammoth task of writing any novel, never mind a philosophical one, you should probably begin by at least demonstrating an ability to construct some well-formed paragraphs in your posts here or no-one with any sensitivity to the rhythms of the language as expressed by any decent author will be able to get past the first page of your proposed project. I know I wouldn't if it were written like the above. In other words, in order to write a work of any kind, even of the most modest kind, you have to be able to write. — Baden

See, that's what I mean. Criticism that keeps you from even getting close to the airport, let alone starting down the runway to take off.

Matthew stared at the at the heap of papers on his desk. It suddenly struck him that maybe this was all completely pointless. He tried to repress this thought for the rest of the day." — Andrew4Handel

So there's your opening 3 sentences; a good start for a short story. Something is going to happen later that day. What? Good? Bad? Very very bad? Utterly surprising? We don't know. You don't either, yet. Keep writing, and for god's sake don't show it to bury the baby before it is born Baden.

It's been decades since I read Bulgakov. I loved The Heart of a Dog -- about a stray dog that received the transplanted balls of a soviet bureaucrat or crook? Can't quite remember. The dog became more of a soviet bureaucrat while remaining pretty much a dog.

The Twelve Chairs, By Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov was also good. Mel Brooks made one of the several movies based on the soviet-society-satirizing novel. I thought it was hilarious.

...don't show it to bury the baby before it is born Baden. — Bitter Crank

Completely honest criticism is what any aspiring writer should want before anything else. Writing is not some special profession where you don't have to be good and everyone should just pat you on the back for trying. If an apprentice carpenter builds a chair that looks like it's going to fall apart the moment someone sits on it, he gets told it's a piece of crap and to start again. And that's how he gets good and we all get to sit around without hurting our asses. Same with writing. It's not something everybody can just do or that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a skill and it's hard and you're not doing anyone any favours by pulling punches on their apparent ability or lack thereof.

Anyhow, my intention isn't to put Andrew off. Developing a decent writing style is achievable with hard work. Actually having something interesting to impart is the really tricky part and I haven't criticized him on that score