scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2pks6g.md

1632 and it's spin-offs evaluated as rational fiction

• Author: u/Farmerbob1 Level 1 author*

• URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2pks6g/1632_and_its_spinoffs_evaluated_as_rational/

• Score: 10

• Created: 2014-12-17T14:10:29

Post:

'1632' by Eric Flint, with it's "ring of fire" dropping a modern town from around 1990 or so into 1632 has been a series of books which I have enjoyed, even including most of the spin-offs. The initial premise of a super-advanced race playing games with space and time for art is rather irrational - but that's backstory, and the characters in the book know nothing of it. What about the rest?

I've never really considered the 1632 series from a rational point of view. In hindsight, without reading them all again and trying to analyze them, I seem to remember them being rather rational.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being fully rational) how rational would you rate the series? If there are any specific bits that are irrational, that really stand out, point them out, and try to regard them as outliers.

Personally, without re-reading them, I would put the main series at around an 8 out of 10, and the offshoot short stories that I have read at a 7 out of 10.

Comments:

u/alexanderwales [+11] Time flies like an arrow (an hour later)

I mostly agree with that. I've read the first couple of them, and they have that same sort of heavy focus on logistics and extrapolating upon a set of initial circumstances that I'd expect the people of /r/rational to like. At the same time, I think that it sometimes gets bogged down in the details a bit, in the way that I'd expect from an author that enjoys finding and describing those details. And the tech level never goes beyond the 1990s.

Actually, in a lot of ways it reminds me of some of the stuff that Harry Turtledove writes - alternate history is by its nature rules-based, unless you're going off the rails.

u/eaglejarl [+1] (2 days later)

And the tech level never goes beyond the 1990s.

That's a good thing, right?

u/alexanderwales [+1] Time flies like an arrow (2 days later)

Good in some ways, bad in others. I haven't read all the books, because there are a million of 'em, but it seems like there's an upper limit to the amount of cool stuff you can do when you're always going backwards in terms of tech level.

But that's perhaps a matter of personal preference.

u/eaglejarl [+6] (2 days later)

Backwards? From what I recall, it felt to me like the tech level was increasing quite quickly. They had a big step down when they arrived, of course, but after that they quickly started inventing sewing machines, railroads, telegraphs, etc. The last book or two that I read, they were even building real ham radio towers.

Or do you simply mean "moving backwards as compared to where we are today"? Because if so, I can absolutely understand that.

u/alexanderwales [+2] Time flies like an arrow (2 days later)

Yeah, I meant moving backwards from where we are today. A lot of the books seemed to deal with increasing the tech level, but that tech level is constrained by the 1990s that Grantville came from. It's still entertaining, but it always made me a bit sad that no one was going to be making a semiconductor plant anytime soon. (Though for all I know, maybe the books actually moved past that already.)

u/andor3333 [+9] (5 hours later)

What I love is how the focus gradually shifts away from the time travelers. It isn't just the travelers changing things. The whole world is innovative and learns from what it is given, and in the end it starts being the down-time individuals who are causing changes and creating new things. So many time travel books just focus on the messianic time traveler here to do everything and set everything right, but here the down timers have just as much agency and brilliance, and often more.

u/Farmerbob1 [+2] Level 1 author (5 hours later)

That is one of the things that makes this series feel more rational to me :)

u/None [+1] (4 days later)

here the down timers have just as much agency and brilliance, and often more

For another book in which this happens, see William Gibson's The Peripheral. (Not exceptionally rational, but definitely enjoyable if you like his style.)

u/BekenBoundaryDispute [+5] (19 hours later)

The initial premise of a super-advanced race playing games with space and time for art is rather irrational - but that's backstory, and the characters in the book know nothing of it.

This is a meta-referential in-joke which plays off of the contradiction between deeply-held norms of knowable, causal behavior in SF and the inherent conceit of the hypothesis. (cf. the epilogue of A Midsummer Night's Dream)

u/Gworn [+3] (3 hours later)

I read the first couple of books some years ago.

Overall it's obvious that there was a lot of care and effort involved to get the world as historically accurate as possible and to get technology right. What would be possible to build in that time period, if the relevant knowledge was there, and what still wouldn't be possible.

So in that sense, the world-building was done in a rational way.

On the other hand, I don't think you could really describe any of the characters as rational. I don't remember how much it deals with good/evil (I think the first one more than the later ones?) or how often people hold the idiot ball. I do remember though that I didn't really like any of the characters by Eric Flint. That caused me to give up on the series, even though I liked the world-building. I just kept rolling my eyes at the characters.

u/Farmerbob1 [+1] Level 1 author (3 hours later)

Which characters, if you don't mind me asking?

There is a substantial chunk of the series devoted to how the religious establishment of the 1632 era would deal with the modern equivalents. That certainly throws a lot of irrationality into the books, but it seems to me that the main characters deal with the religious issues rationally. With the sheer number of individuals in play, there are a few idiots running around, causing mayhem, but most of the main characters seem rational, even to the point of knowing how the irrational people are likely to react. They aren't always brilliant, and on a couple occasions they fall prey to being irrational in emotional moments, but I can't think of any high profile main character that was irrational.

The most irrational of the secondary characters that I can remember off the top of my head is the antagonist who tries to organize the killing of the Pope. Some of his decisions were plain crazy, and he didn't seem to be insane, but he was countered by some very rational people, and even his own political backers considered what he did to be insane.

u/Gworn [+2] (4 hours later)

You might want to avoid spoilers here. I don't think I've gotten to the book you referenced.

What I meant was, I don't think the characters are any more rational than characters generally are in this kind of fiction. My dislike for most of the characters doesn't stem from a rational/irrational divide. Just the way they are written, their archetypes and the Pathos that shines through. Might be just my pet peeves.

u/Rouninscholar [+1] (5 hours later)

It sounds heavily that you are saying they are at least "decent" but not to your tastes.

u/None [+3] (5 hours later)

There is a lot of sensibility and bias for action in the Grantville community, and there are enough people that, so long as the idea isn't too extraordinary, someone will think of it eventually. On the other hand, people tend to get in over their heads very quickly -- the initial forays into international politics are a combination of impulsiveness and serendipity. People are stupid sometimes, but it's realistic stupidity.

On the whole, I'd say it's a good job of making realistic characters, but I hesitate to call it rational. Maybe it's because people are optimizing their outcomes in relatively banal ways. Maybe it's because the insights and good decisions tend to be spread across more people than in a typical novel. Maybe it's the amount of luck. But something seems off to me.

u/VorpalAuroch [+3] Life before Death (13 hours later)

I agree with this. I'd say that it has an abundance of level-1 intelligent characters but few to no level-2s (Cardinal Richilieu might qualify, particularly thinking of him making the big damn trade to make America French, and Mike Stearns approaches it during his better moments)

u/eaglejarl [+1] (2 days later)

it has an abundance of level-1 intelligent characters but few to no level-2s

I notice that I am confused about the idea of Level 2 intelligence. It gets used in ways that make it seem superhuman, but I don't think that's what it is supposed to be.

Would this be a fair definition of Level (0|1|2) intelligence?:

• Level 0 people mostly follow social conventions / programming as opposed to thinking for themselves.
• Level 1 people think about what they should do, but they also think about why. They derive their own rulesets on what is appropriate behavior. They find smart, creative, outside-the-box solutions to problems, and frequently munchkin rules.
• Level 2 people can do all the things that Level 1 people can do. They can also model Level 1 people in their heads sufficiently well to predict what those people will do and get out ahead of them.

This is the best definition that I've been able to come up with, but it feels artificial -- why exactly is it that Level 1 people cannot model others well enough to get ahead of them?

My HPMOR examples would be McGonagall, Harry, and Quriddlemort respectively. I don't understand why Harry is less intelligent than Quriddlemort though -- less experienced and therefore unable to get ahead of him, sure. But less intelligent? Or is experience considered part of intelligence?

u/VorpalAuroch [+2] Life before Death (2 days later)

Harry is definitely portrayed as a Level 2 intelligent character, and McGonagall is Level 1. I think the only characters in HPMoR who are Level 0 are the politicians, specifically Umbridge, who is portrayed as a straightforward idiot.

Level 0 is someone who regularly carries the Idiot Ball. Level 1 is feeling like real people who don't make you yell at the TV screen in frustration. Level 2 is actually making someone come off as believably very intelligent.

In most contexts, being the only actually exceptionally intelligent person around would make you look superhuman, so I can somewhat understand the mistake.

u/eaglejarl [+1] (2 days later)

Hm. The Idiot Ball (warning: TVTropes) refers to someone who is"...acting out of character, misunderstanding something that could be cleared up by asking a single reasonable question or not performing a simple action that would solve everything."

I guess the politicians are not performing the action "be diplomatic" with the Muggles but, honestly, I don't see it as out of character for the purebloods, and the Minister has always been such a self-important idiot that I don't see it as out of character for him either.

Anyway, thanks for the definitions.

u/eaglejarl [+1] (2 days later)

I think these books are definitely worth a read. The premise is interesting and fairly original -- time travel of an entire town isn't something I've seen before -- and the execution is good.

One of the most interesting things is that Flint laid down a solid foundation and then opened it up to be a shared world. From what I have gathered, he did this for two reasons: (1) he wanted it to feel like real history, which meant there had to be more than one authorial voice / ideaset; (2) to help new writers get established.

The flipside of that, of course, is that the writing quality and style differ. The ones by Flint and / or Weber are excellent, and most of the rest are quite good, but after a while the focus drifted outside what I was interested in and I stopped reading.

u/thedoze [+1] (3 months later)

love it ripped through it in a few days, will be starting 1633 shortly

---