♦Welcome to another edition of the Open Book Blog Hop!♦
Topic #506
Do you call yourself more of a philosopher or entertainer?
Welcome back to another Open Book Blog Hop, Friend! The authors included in this ongoing learning series wish to thank you for your reading. Even more so, we appreciate that you share our writing with friends. If you’re new to the series, welcome aboard. The authors engage and impress weekly. Prepare to become a regular reader.
When I think of philosophers, I see old men with big beards and long robes. Something biblical in appearance. There’s a level of high, almost unachievable perfection in it. Wisdom comes with experience, not necessarily age, but age will always provide nearly everyone with a base of experiences. What we take from that, where we go from there, is what leads to the rest. Moreover, philosophy tends to dissect the way we view the world along with the norms and rules society impresses upon us. Philosophy, for instance, gets problematic at times when examining good and bad behavior. What is it good or bad, and how do we judge it honestly?
Good versus evil should be a cut and dry notion. However, philosophers like to pull it all apart and say that it is dependent upon the norms and rules of a group. If we think war is great and noble, which we’ve seen this throughout history, then we will easily wage war over serious to trifling matters. If, on the other hand, we view war as terrible thing violating some perceived sanctity, then we will make war only when absolutely pushed to it.
So then, let me ask you, why do the citizenry have to be manipulated to wage war if it is just a matter of social norms? If we all agree that war is great for us and natural, then why wouldn’t we want to go at it? Philosophy attempts to explore these ideas, too. In truth, it never provides a single solid answer. The result of any process in philosophy results in a it depends. Sure, you can cite Vikings and colonialism as proof of valuing warrior life, but we also can cite the peacekeepers in multitude.
Entertainment, on the other hand, is a fluid and subjective matter, sometimes pushing our boundaries. It doesn’t rely upon manipulation. Instead, the entertainer observes the crowd and figures out what they like and what they are drawn to. There are common ideals and common issues. That doesn’t mean the two don’t mix. For instance, if we look to fables, we see the pairing quite clearly. Parables, too.
Literature theory makes heavy use of philosophical ideas to examine a written work of art. Exploring meaning from multiple perspectives, the author or audience to name a few, it tries to explain what it is all for. However, opinion not objectivity is the stronger impetus. Lit theory writers start with a work, come up with their own ideas about it, and then use the various theory apparatus to analyze the work and prove it. Manipulation, if you will.
Can you prove it?
Sounds to me like they are entertaining themselves but also creating hegemony. When I did this form of study in my courses, it was entertaining to me. It engaged me more deeply with the work. It also served to tell me more about myself and the way my ideas worked. This is why I was so drawn to intertextuality. The information already in my brain box was definitely informing the way that I saw any work read. It created a level of engagement that decided enjoyment or drudgery, however. I didn’t seek to manipulate the way others viewed a piece of media.
In the end, entertaining is the biggest aspect of writing in my opinion. The majority of the writers you read are quite skilled at the mechanics of writing. This is an absolute must for publishing. So what is left to judge a writer’s skill by? The adeptness with which they unfold the story (structural), including pacing, is a big tool for many. That said, I think structural analysis doesn’t go deep (not to be confused with structuralism). It’s one step in from grammar. In fact, it’s part of why publishers, agents, and managers look for passive voice problems and wordiness. That stuff bogs down a tale real quick! (Even in screenwriting — too much exposition or too many long stares at something). You’ll find a lot of bros critical of a film or book on this level.
Write concise. Get to your point quickly. Don’t bore the reader. Try to avoid dialect. All of these are a means to fast reads that keep ample pace. Publishers love them!
However, do not forget that a good writer is compelling. In fact, the compelling aspect of the tale can overcome any mechanical issues. Think of Tolkien and that lengthy opener in The Hobbit and Bilbo’s Birthday at the start of Lord of the Rings. We forgive him. The rest of the book makes us take it all in greedily. Well, the fans he’s reached and continues to make, anyway.
Why is that? We are entertained. Put aside the philosophy we find in the text and the history of the author as a linguist. Audiences are deeply entertained by this series. It takes you to a far away place. You walk with characters you like, and learn things about their world. You can obsess or keep it light. There’s a lot there to wrap oneself up in. The hero journey is a strong form in entertainment.
But where do you fall?
The entertainer is my preferred label. The writing journey started for me in being entertained by media, and wanting to try my hand at the art. Perfecting the mechanics is a vital but small part of the whole build. Ultimately, you have to understand either yourself and those close to you, or people as a whole. If you’re the first, you’ll be more niche, but still reach an audience. You’re not alone in how you act or think. If you understand wider society better, or some measure between, you’ll find yourself appealing to larger groups. You can be all of the above, and I think those are the best authors.
My problem is that I understand myself and the majority of those in my life. My confidence isn’t so strong about the wider world. In fact, I scratch my head a lot with the news and interactions of strangers. Are our values truly similar at all? How do I even fit in here?
Overall, humans, in my estimate, are generally good creatures. A third of humanity easily sway toward bad, and that is why we can’t have nice things. probably ten percent are truly evil (Manson types), wielding twenty percent to make trouble for the remainder of us through manipulation by the truly evil ones.
Admittedly, my perspective projects onto others I meet. I genuinely believe they feel similarly. Often, they meet expectation. However, there is the middle group of folks who are terribly cautious or operating in their own headspace. Nothing malignant, but the self-protective nature comes off cold in a lot cases while the others in their head seem cruel. Miscommunication like this leads to a lot of struggle between folks. It can even tell us authors that they didn’t much care for our work, when nothing could be further from the truth. They just wish to be more reserved about feedback. (See how I try to think the best of humans?)
This makes it a bit harder to determine how to entertain folks. Even for myself, I don’t always laugh out loud at comedy sketches or stand up. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t find it amusing. However, the comic is going to think I hated it! Mortifying misunderstandings.
Philosophy feeds entertainment…
Understanding humanity requires a little bit of philosophy and psychology, and some hope. There are whole studies around the idea that philosophy feeds into entertainment. I am not sure that it is helpful to an author or not, to do a deep dive like that. Can’t hurt, right? Perspective is always helpful, to get out of our own heads and off our well-worn paths and find understanding.
Great stories explore the human experience in ways that don’t preach, may teach lessons, but always say I see you. Connection is key to reach audiences. The individual consumer of media wants to feel talked to personally. Life can be lonely and monologue. When others start speaking the things you go through, you realize you’re not alone and connection is made. You may not solve the problem, but you feel you’ve made a step forward. In addition, a measure of comfort is gained.
Likewise, great stories take you away from your problems or boredom. Reaching for a read was huge for me on the weekends and evenings when young. I lived at a distance from most of my friends, out in the countryside. My parents worked full-time and were not ready to cart us around to other homes to hangout. Neighbors were a clip up the road, and often strangers. Upstate New York has large swaths of space, and also very little way to come together. Our culture is centered on individualism and work. Thus, much of the community building is killed off by distance and lack of time. This is especially true for secular folk, or those who participate in faiths that aren’t mainstream in the area.
All of this lead to me writing. I sought connection through written word, as authors before me attempted. I felt the presence of others in their worlds. They took me on adventures with people I would never meet, but understood intimately. Shared ideas provided a vehicle when I couldn’t drive. My boredom quelled. Energy returned.
The world is structured in a way that travel and adventure are not always possible. Books and film take us safely to places and unscathed through dire experiences. We talk out problems through their dialogue. The realization that others have similar thoughts and drives give us empathy. Isolation ebbs. Ideas get exercise. We may even learn something.
In the end, it helps to realize that authors often achieve the title of philosopher as their career progresses. Keep in mind, though, they only set out to touch hearts and minds for that deeper human connection. Click through the links in the scroll box below to read the other author responses. Don’t forget to subscribe. The hop will arrive in your inbox on Friday without searching for us. See you next time!
I like to think my work entertains, but I also hope that there’s something in there that makes them think. Never in a preachy way, but like Terry Pratchett did, by making the social commentary a part of the entertainment.
Your work definitely entertains. That’s a good way to manage a discussion on issues. Just present it in an example, and let others have their thoughts about it. I think that’s very engaging and a necessary part of reading.
Being an author is lonely for most of us. But it’s amazing how it draws us to connect with others.
It can be so very lonely at times. I’m glad I’m an introvert and need that time alone. Still, it can be so much alone time. We still need that connection. Such an old human thing.
As you say, entertainment is subjective. I wouldn’t find The Hobbit very entertaining, but others would. We writers are all entertainers, and just because we want to infuse our characters with some of our own morals/ethics, it doesn’t make us philosophers as well.
I can’t imagine being a philosopher. I have a notion of right and wrong that is my own innate understanding of society and personhood, but declaring or debating it–I don’t know. Anxiety inducing! I mean, no harm to others and all that, right, but then there are those moral gray areas. I feel like a philosopher makes it all so serious when it’s not that serious. Am I philosophizing now? lol