scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2jmwwq.md

Most fiction isn't that rational

• Author: u/None *

• URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2jmwwq/most_fiction_isnt_that_rational/

• Score: 19

• Created: 2014-10-18T20:43:51

Post:

Inspired by some discussion here.

The sidebar is a liar. The Characteristics of Rational Fiction it lists are characteristics of good fiction generally. Characters doing things for character reasons rather than as tools of the plot? Check. Bad guys being actual characters and not being made of atomic evil? Check. Characters solving problems through their own abilities rather than deus ex machinas? Check. Rules of the fictional world being sane and consistent? Yup, check. Just imagine anyone telling you not to do these things. All good fiction is rational fiction. Hooray!

This is pretty normal, actually. People tend to present definitions of their thing that they like that eventually prove to be a little too good. At the risk of mentioning politics, a liberal might define liberalism as being in favor of freedom, individualism, tolerance, reason, science, and being sensible about acting against principle for the greater good. But by this definition any sane, decent person would be a liberal. And a conservative might say that conservatives favor group cohesiveness and community, healthy, well-structured families, an appropriate respect for religion in society, protection from overreaching government, and a healthy respect for authority and the rule of law. Who could not be a conservative by this definition?

I don't mean to imply that there's anything sinister going on here. People just tend to present the things they like as less objectionable and more all-encompassing than they really are.

So the rational/rationalist distinction comes up, and frankly if we are going to go with the over-general definition of rational fiction, then this is really the rationalist fiction subreddit, because the bullet points for rationalist fiction uniquely match the subset of fiction posted here much better.

I would try to define rational/ist fiction simply by taking the characteristics of fiction posted here that, if such qualities were lacking in a piece of fiction posted here, that piece of fiction would be removed/downvoted/ignored, controlling for quality. So in that sense rational/ist fiction seems to be about:

• Characters explicitly using and teaching others about rationalist techniques of the sort found in HPMOR.
• Characters who want to optimize the world or end death rather than get the girl, save the kingdom, or other more typical character motivations.
• The character's motivation and the world's rules being presented in such a way that the readers can conceivably predict the next chapter's contents pretty accurately.
• "Munchkin" stuff--characters who understand and exploit the rules of the world to ridiculous and gamebreaking effect.
• Probably power fantasies about supersmart teenagers cowing authority figures into submission with speeches about reason, science, ethics, and so on.
• Science fiction that considers some theoretically possible outcome of scientific technology with a transhumanist slant.
• Deconstructing the world, pointing out, criticizing, and fixing its flaws.
• Characters whose primary advantage over others is their brains, and who use their brains in ways that are not magical a la Sherlock Holmes. This is probably the big core one, although much of the e.g. hard sci fi stuff doesn't necessarily involve it.

But what the hell do I know? What traits of rational/ist fiction did I miss, and how would you define the genre?

Comments:

u/comport [+10] (4 hours later)

The Characteristics of Rational Fiction it lists are characteristics of good fiction generally.

Well, maybe. I don't agree. They're some characteristics of one kind of good fiction, which we label 'rational' fiction. For example 1984 is certainly good fiction, but it breaks or skirts all of the rules of rational fiction. At the same time, even a story that follows all the rules of rational fiction isn't forced to be good.

I don't agree that the genre 'rational' should be re-defined to mean 'rationalist'. I find that some elements of rationalist fiction (pontificating on rational techniques, having grand reality-defying goals like global optimization or ending death) are very intrusive and don't lend themselves to an enjoyable story. I find the distinction between rational and rationalist useful.

I also don't think we'd gain anything by re-gearing the community (i.e. by changing definitions) towards purely rationalist fiction.

If you wanted to expand the definition of rational fiction, I think it'd be safe to put something like "The wider world evolves/has evolved logically based on its rules" which would capture fan fictions like To The Stars and Emperor of Zero.

It might be safe to include something like "The protagonist must behave rationally" if you were happy with losing HPMOR. Or maybe "There must be a main character who behaves rationally". But I don't think that's needed on top of all the other criteria.

u/TimeLoopedPowerGamer [+12] Utopian Smut Peddler (11 hours later)

The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.

80% of fiction plots gone, right there: lucking into victory, new powers they "never knew they had" coming through in a clutch, chekhov's guns dropping in that make no sense, actual bare deus ex machina without reason or foreshadowing, heroes winning because they "did they right thing" and that was rewarded by the universe, even after it looked like they'd lost. Most disagreements about "rational" fic on this sub are this issue to various degrees.

That is why the Dresden Files books aren't held up as strongly rational fiction. They aggressively go against solving problems with brains. Characters solve problems with super-powered "ignore the man behind the curtain" plotting that is revealed at the eleventh hour and bare-knuckled brawling. Several times, Harry even says he should be doing something smarter, but he's not because he's too mad to be smart.

The rules of the fictional world are sane and consistent.

Many fantasy and soft sci-fi fiction stories involve things that just are, and are not explained or rationalized in any significant way. This accounts for most of the rest. Maybe 19.9%+.

Dresden 'verse, for example, is moderately consistent (if possessed of a DBZ like power curve), but actually has a zone of the universe where you definitionally need to be insane (as humans know it) to interact meaningfully with the environment.

u/None [+5] (13 hours later)

[deleted]

u/TimTravel [+2] (5 days later)

Greek myths do often have logical solutions, like Medusa.

u/None [+2] (19 hours later)

HJPEV makes it through Azkaban with a lot of luck and things he didn't know was possible until he needed the ability to hide from and even command Dementors.

The Hardy Boys solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources, but I don't think they belong on this sub. That's why I was trying to define rationalist fiction simply by what comes up on here.

u/TimeLoopedPowerGamer [+5] Utopian Smut Peddler (23 hours later)

Not a great example. The actual problem was solved in that case with prep and smarts. It was survived with luck, and just barely. He didn't use his new powers to do anything but stay alive, and even that only worked because of his previous preparation and knowledge of psychology and some battlefield epistemology.

The Hardy Boys is obviously a false equivalency here, and you again confuse the rational and rationalist terminology

u/None [+8] (an hour later)

[deleted]

u/None [+1] (an hour later)

Well, sure. I forgot to mention that this is a subculture more than anything, and so there will be all manner of vagary dividing content suitable for this sub from content unsuitable.

u/Transfuturist [+5] Carthago delenda est. (an hour later)

You're conflating rational and rationalist fiction. Rational fiction is merely fiction written rationally, with a realistic world, characters, and events.

u/qznc [+6] Chaos Legion (12 hours later)

My extra-short try of a definition:

Rational fiction: The author tries hard to keep everything consistent.

Rationalist fiction: Rationality teaching through rational fiction.

Currently, rationalist fiction solely consists of HPMOR (+branches?) and Luminosity (+sequel?). proof.

u/Charlie___ [+3] (18 hours later)

I like your definitions. As for the proof, meh, that's just who has used the tag.

Fiction that actually tries to teach / demonstrate thinking skills includes Blindsight, Steerswoman's Road, Sherlock Holmes (sometimes it's deus ex machina, but also sometimes it's not), and Metropolitan Man.

u/J4k0b42 [+2] (3 days later)

I'd say some of Cory Doctorow's stuff like Little Brother would be an alright fit for rationalist fic, I don't know if he's aware of the rational movement, but his explanation of Bayes theorem was my first exposure to the idea.

u/Drazelic [+3] Dai-Gurren Brigade (2 days later)

Evaporative cooling, man. Having a good variety of styles of work floating around prevents us from settling into a low-energy-configuration where the community start saying 'no we cannot have this story here, it breaks rule #12' instead of just enjoying things which have a noticeable rational influence. Discovering new truths vs. defending old truths, and all that jazz.

u/Vivificient [+2] United Nations Intelligence Taskforce (7 days later)

I wrote the original version of the definition in the sidebar by a process similar to what you suggest. I was listing traits that most of the stories being shared on (at that time) r/hpmor had in common. That original version (for comparison: http://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/1rkkam/in_light_of_the_recent_slew_of_recommendations/) is quite similar to the definition you suggest above.

The main changes since then are removing the points about transhumanism and the consequences of technology, since they are really more of Things LessWrongers Like than Rational Things. Also the point about characters not being stupid was changed, likely since the general opinion now is that HPMOR!Harry is "stupid in ways that are justified" rather than "not stupid".

I think part of the goal of the broader definition is to find more things many people here would enjoy to read, rather than delimiting a precise but very small genre. Possibly the best definition would be an extensive definition, like, "Stuff you'd recommend to someone who liked Worm and HPMOR", but it's fun trying to nail down what one likes about things....

u/None [+4] (2 hours later)

Oh god not this again

---