Category talk:Philosophical novels

Change in criteria
In the Categories for Deletion discussion linked above, it was suggested that the existing criteria on this category is unmanageable. The idea that came out of it was perhaps we can rewrite the criteria for this category to consider authorial intent as the measure for inclusion. How about "Novels whose primary intent are to convey philosophical ideas"? Going to crosslink this to the WP listed above and see if we can get a discussion going here. --Syrthiss 13:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I see where you are heading with this. We need to check out how most others are using the term and try to stick with that in my view. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats reasonable. :) --Syrthiss 12:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about as a new working definition "a Philosophical novel - is one where Philosophical ideas form the main crux of the narrative." This removes the analysis of authorial intention which may be unknown. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  15:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO that's still highly problematic. The best that could be done with that would be declared authorial intent, and even that's hardly a clear criterion, as it'd then require interpreting often very gnomic utterances. As we have not so much as an article on the "philosophical novel" (though encarta does have a stab, after a fashion). I think re-listing for deletion as soon as is decent, is the most sensible course. Alai 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where there is general agreement that a novel exhibits the treatment of Philosophical ideas, either in the structure of the novel or as the subject of the plot, or of characters debate I don't see the problem. We are dealing with an imprecise activity when categorizing at the best of times anyway. We surely can have no problem refering to the notable novels of Ann Rand, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Satre, Dostoyevsky and Matthew Lipman. When a high propotion of the subject treatment in the Novel deals with issues of the meaning of life or large life issues surely we can not object to this designation. Yes we need to avoid the danger of seeing all life stories in this way but we surely can disuade that. Similarly we could argue about every such designation, for instance when is a 2historical novel2 such a novel; when is deals with subjects that have happened, surely not. In fact every categorization has issues that does not preclude the value of using them. Yes the wording of the category might need to be clearer and or tighter, but what is this penchant for deletion. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  09:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "might" is putting it mildly: the (one and only) "keep" had the rider "but edit for stricter criteria".  If stricter criteria aren't going to be forthcoming, I think we should adjourn to deletion review or re-listing.  I've stated more than once why this should be deleted (and three people concurred):  I don't think the "penchant" characterisation is helpful.  Alai 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, back to the criteria topic. is the definition proposed above better? "Novels where Philosophical ideas form the main crux of the narrative." :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  08:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be amenable to that criteria. I hadn't noticed that we don't actually have an article on Philosophical novels before. =O --Syrthiss 13:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is long overdue, I would be happy to get involved, but would need help from others to get such an important article off the ground. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Given how broad a scope the term "philosophical ideas" has, I think that's a pretty open-ended definition. Deciding whether to include or exclude something on that basis is going to be extremely subjective, and would in theory require a per-article debate -- in practice, what's more likely is ad hoc inclusion or exclusion, as at present.  (Incidentally, this is just one of the reasons why the corresponding stub type was an even worse idea.)  But it's better than nothing.  Alai 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In retrospect I think I would completely agree with you on the stub issue. However as a catagory I still think we need this. As an encylopedia we need to represent the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be. Numerous novels are refered to as "Philosophical" for a collection of reasons that appear to be the most cohesive around the notion / criteria I have proposed. We may think that is not valid, but surely that is not the point. Many use this designation and are likely to want to look for it. Yes we will need to be prepared to debate individual article inclusions, but what's new! As I said the art of categorization / classification is not a precise science, as a trained librarian I should know. Just as an aside I don't even like to read "Philosophical Novels" read myself, far too dry most of them. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  10:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * heh me either. I just got pulled into this.  Ok, I'm going to change the criteria based on Kevinalewis' "crux" above and see if I can take a pass at the articles in the category today. --Syrthiss 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's more rejoicing in heaven, etc, etc, in regards to the stub type. :) There's a difference between referring to a novel as philosophical, or noting that notable persons have done so, and deciding that they can be definitively categorised as such.  An article can reflect the subtleties of opposing POVs (X thinks Y is the quintessential philosophical novel, Z says X is full of it) in a way the category system cannot.  The categorisation guidelines say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."  On that basis, a category where inclusion of anything is going to be neither of those things is highly problematic.  (I realize debates on categorisation are not unprecedented, but categories likely to produce one per article are nonetheless a bad idea.)  Alai 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)