Asher Sisneros

A man is only as good as his character. Such character is judged based on how he lives his life and the principles by which he governs it. One could describe this as their life philosophy. The absence of life philosophy is the absence of identity. One could argue that the most heinous criminal on death row doesn’t have a life philosophy. If he did, what drove him to break the law? Well, it was that very life philosophy. Remember that a life philosophy is just rules men govern their lives with. In the case of the criminal, he has rules and motives, just corrupted ones. 

By understanding an individual’s life philosophy, you identify their character and thought process. Some writers have opted to provide the reader with insight into the life philosophy of their protagonist(s) towards the beginning of the book. That makes sense, giving the reader a foundation for the character’s motives. The life philosophy of a protagonist can even foreshadow an event. But everything I’ve stated so far isn’t just true of just fictional novels; it’s true of plays, books, films, and even autobiographies. Henry D. Thoreau did this in his quasi-autobiography, Walden Pond, by summarizing his life philosophy at the beginning of the book. As already stated, that provides the reader with a foundation for his motives. That is a jolly good thing. 

However, there is a criticism of that approach. Well, more like a different means of achieving the same result. It stems from the Show, Don’t Tell philosophy. Rather than explicitly stating the protagonist’s principles and character, it demonstrates it. Some writers prefer to show the reader a protagonist’s character through their actions. That makes sense, given that’s exactly how we judge other people. For example, superficial statements like, “I’m driven by a desire to help other people,” are not taken to heart if they don’t match that individual’s actions. Rather than say someone in a story was a good man, writers will often provide examples instead and let the reader come to that conclusion on their own. A good example that most people are well acquainted with is the film Captain America: The First Avenger. In it, the filmmakers demonstrate Steve’s character by having him jump on a grenade to save everyone else. While the grenade was fake and just a test, the audience immediately understood that Steve would gladly sacrifice himself to save others. Not only did this action inform the audience of Steve’s life philosophy, but it also foreshadowed the film’s end when he crashed an armed bomber into the ocean to save New York City. In this example, the life philosophy of Steve Roger was shown, not told. 

So, there are two means of showing life philosophy, but which is better? Should writers state it at the beginning of their book or show it? I am an advocate of the latter. It is more artistic. The tactic that Thoreau employed—writing pages upon pages of personal beliefs—is very dull to read. No, it is as boring as all get out! But I digress; I’m getting off-topic. Secondly, aside from making for more intriguing reading material, I return to foreshadowing. By choosing to show instead of tell, writers can foreshadow events later in the book. It is beautiful. 

In conclusion, everyone has a life philosophy. They all vary as personalities do, but they define our actions and identity. When writing—either a fictional novel or an autobiography—show identity, do not state it.