scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2txg42.md

## [Meta][D] They Should Have Sent A Poet

* Author: u/AmeteurOpinions  *Finally, everyone was working together.**
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2txg42/metad_they_should_have_sent_a_poet/
* Score: 42

* Created: 2015-01-28T04:32:24

### Post:

This post was prompted by a thread [over here](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2s6uf1/thought_experiment_for_the_bored_rationalists_is/cnmqcri?context=3), wherein /u/eaturbrainz noted something which has been nagging me for a while -- and I mean a *while* -- I've been ruminating on this since before /r/rational existed, which is why it took so long to write this. This pertains mostly to rational and rationalist *fan*fiction, but I hope everyone can get something out of it.

----

Eliezer Yudkowsky touched on something important in his [Explaining Other Universes](http://yudkowsky.tumblr.com/writing/other-universes) post, but I want to take it further.

> There's something that feels natural about exploiting laws and explaining facts someone else laid down, maybe because it bears a resemblance to the real challenge we face against Nature.

> One way to get that feeling is the path of hard SF and hard fantasy: to have a small set of premises so lawful that by the time they turn into problems and puzzles, you don't feel like you're choosing them, because they were generated by the law.

> But that path is hard, and doesn't work for everything. There are simple laws that you can decide will govern time-travel and then everything else will follow from that; but there is no simple law that generates Dementors, or Azkaban, or the Potters' tombstone.

> So the other way is to write stories inside someone else's universe, and stare at that universe's given observations until you begin to imagine your own answers to its puzzles, and deduce what further facts you require as background truths.

> Hence rationalist fanfiction.

Fanfiction, as a rule, is an incredibly diverse medium. Crackfics and straight retellings of canon abound, but rationalfics are unique in that they have an implied requirement to improve on the source material. The rational fanfiction (ratfic?) writer looks at the source material and says to themselves "I like this, but I would like it more if it was more like *this*." 

Which brings us to the discussion:

> [/u/eaturbrainz] eh-hem. Real-world heuristics for instrumental rationality are not *actually* instrumental rationality. If you find yourself in a universe with Spiral Power, going beyond the impossible and kicking logic to the curb *is the strictly rational move*. You cannot rationalfic Gurren Lagann because there are no errors in reasoning to fix, whatsoever: they're doing the right things the whole time because *their universe really does run on awesomesauce*.

It's not just *Gurren Lagann* which falls victim to this; *Fullmetal Alchemist* (*Brotherhood* or the original manga, not the first anime run) is mis-re-interpeted on this subreddit too. I can see why it makes an attractive candidate: it has a great plot with many twists and characters and some cool, albeit limited, use of real chemistry. **But if you try to make *Fullmetal Alchemist* more rational by injecting more complex chemistry into the fight scenes, you have totally missed the point.**

*Fullmetal Alchemist* is not about solving problems through the power of ~~family~~ molecular bonds. *Fullmetal Alchemist* is about *grief*. It is about *redemption*. The most significant plot devices such as Philosopher's Stones or Human Transmutation have jack-all to do with real-world physics.

A fictional work can be divided into two parts: the *plot* and the *story*. The plot is the actual sequence of events. The story is the emotional foundation running in parallel. Together they form the narrative. Good writers recognize this, and keep these two parts properly synchronized. Think of your favorite story, like, say, *Worm*. When you're remembering your favorite part, you're really remembering the *story*, not the *plot*. You have to think harder and further past the general happiness to realize why it makes you have such a fond recollection. This is why a work of literature can endure for centuries even though precious little actually occurs in the book, and why the most explosive action film can be forgotten a few hours after you leave the theater.

This is why adding more chemistry to *Fullmetal Alchemist* is such a grave mistake: the plot gains little, and the story even less. If you want to write a rational fanfiction, you have to understand the Real Issues at the heart of the original, and work from there.

Quick question: How much has Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres learned about magic since the start of HPMOR? *Not that much*. There's one quick theorycrafting session about Atlantis and sufficiently advanced technology and that's all. It's still a fantastic story of course, **because the magic doesn't actually matter**. Unlike *Ra*, HPMOR does not trip over its own magic system. A "plausible" hypothesis is tossed to the audience like a bone and Eliezer gets on with the actual plot, confronting the **Actual Problem**.

*That* is what rational fiction is about (to me anyway). Looking past Good and Evil and saying: What is the Real Problem here? What, *when you get down to it*, is causing all of this trouble?

Writing a rational fanfiction is writing the N+1 draft of that work. You have the entirety of the source material laid out in front of you all at once, an advantage the original author could only dream of. You must consider the theme, that raw red thread deep inside it. You must find it and refine it, extracting every drop of potential.

*Weaver Nine* is held up as a more rational version of *Worm*, but I don't quite agree. It's excellent, and certainly more munchikin, but not what I think a Rational!*Worm* would really be. By Eliezer's definition, Taylor Herbert is already a Level-3 Intelligent character. Making her magically smarter doesn't improve the *story*, because *Worm* isn't just about physical violence, no matter how smart. It's about *teamwork*, and *coordination Problems*, and *social isolation* and what people do when there are no good choices. The story exists to study those problems, not play Who Would Win.

----

**TL;DR**

*Alice in Wonderland* is not improved by sending a therapist down the rabbit hole.

If you want the rational version, if you want the tale that can be all it can be, send a poet.

### Comments:

> **u/alexanderwales** [+13]  *Time flies like an arrow* (2 hours later)
> 
> I agree, for the most part. I think that where rational fic shines best is when it's playing some variation on the themes of the original, or making callbacks to the plot that was. Where some people go wrong (or go in a direction that I tend not to like) is when there's just a sequence of cool things that have been strung together. I don't think that every story needs to have a thesis statement, but a good author should at least be trying to make some comment on *something* instead of just letting characters run amok. The books I like best are the ones that have been distilled down into the expression of a single big thought, or a cluster of related ones.

> **u/None** [+11]  (10 hours later)
> 
> Firstly, someone did something I encouraged, so [this is my face now.](http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/6/68616/1545245-gendo005.jpg)  But now, here comes the argument.
> 
> >Fullmetal Alchemist is not about solving problems through the power of family molecular bonds. Fullmetal Alchemist is about grief. It is about redemption. The most significant plot devices such as Philosopher's Stones or Human Transmutation have jack-all to do with real-world physics.
> 
> That's right.  They *do* have jack-all to do with real-world physics.  And this is one of the reasons such works need some level of literary critique from a "scientific" or "rational" perspective: quite often, [an entire work has its themes and its *emotional foundation* built on bloody quicksand](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWhaleAesop).
> 
> Fullmetal Alchemist is about grief and redemption for tragedies and mistakes that we either can fix today in real life, or will someday be able to fix in real life.  Ok, that last bit is a *little* too transhumanist of me: death still happens and is still, quite often, horrible.  Thing is, though, reality doesn't have [some *guy* standing there, calling himself God, acting all Anti-Spiral and *dishing out ironic punishments* to people who "trespass on God's domain"](http://fma.wikia.com/wiki/Truth).
> 
> Likewise, there are series such as *Harry Potter*, where anyone remotely clever can "Munchkin" the available "magic" (plot devices) into doing far more emotional/thematic work than the original author intended for it to do.
> 
> In real life, both the limitations and benefits of *our* Applied Phlebotinum come from the natural consequences of using the Phlebotinum.  Pollute the air, get acid rain.  Spend money frivolously, wind up broke.  Invent usable nuclear fusion reactors, get an immense supply of cheap energy.  Organize teams, hit deadlines.  ["We are as gods and might as well get good at it."](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog)
> 
> It is the job of stories to tell us something, sideways and metaphorically, about our own actual lives.  Anyone who examines the sociological effects of fundamentalist religion can tell about the danger of stories that "explain" why the world must always stay the same!
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to stop here before I start lovingly citing *Gurren Lagann* and explaining about how we may need an entire subgenre of rationalfic for the purpose of explaining to the reader *just how much fucking potential we can squeeze out of a tiny bit of Phlebotinum*.  Pretend that I've said something about ["capitalist realism"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_realism#Mark_Fisher) and the raw *power* of being able to imagine how the world might be different than it currently is.  Let me gesture at FMA and the [Balance of Good and Evil](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil) to show that yes, there are a great many stories that dedicate themselves to tying human potential down on a table, and to convincing the denizens of underground villages that there truly is no Surface above, and that all they will *ever* have is rock over their heads.  Have I mentioned I hate Gen Urobuchi?
> 
> Well, that attempt to stop totally failed.  No longer sure what the point was.
> 
> >That is what rational fiction is about (to me anyway). Looking past Good and Evil and saying: What is the Real Problem here? What, when you get down to it, is causing all of this trouble?
> 
> Secondary question: *is there* any trouble, really, when you think about it from the perspective of real life?

>> **u/AmeteurOpinions** [+0]  *Finally, everyone was working together.* (12 hours later)
>> 
>> > No longer sure what the point was.
>> 
>> Me neither.

> **u/None** [+9]  (11 hours later)
> 
> "Don't shove in SCIENCE and LOGIC just cuz rationalist giggles but to enhance the story you want to tell."
> 
> Fair summary?

>> **u/AmeteurOpinions** [+7]  *Finally, everyone was working together.* (12 hours later)
>> 
>> Fair summary.

>>> **u/None** [+5]  (12 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I dig it. Too much of the brainstorming here amounts to "But what if this fantasy mechanic actually made sense?" or "But what if the hero made Inspiring Rationalist Speeches all the time?" rather than a coherent take on a set of themes serviced by characters and a plot.

> **u/E-o_o-3** [+7]  (15 hours later)
> 
> >How much has Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres learned about magic since the start of HPMOR? Not that much.
> 
> *But*, he does use what he does know intelligently. 
> 
> Rational fanfic isn't "scientify-the-original", but it *is* "insert common sense and maybe even intellect into the character". It's not *just* about being a better poet than the original author.
> 
> So, a rational Alchemist might not know chemistry, but what do we do about the niggling feeling in our head that the alchemists could make philosopher's stones out of the near-dying, the ability to bind souls to objects, body swap, create empty bodies, etc makes immortality really easy, why are there still poor farmers when irrigation is magically trivial, why do more people not open the Gate of Truth for the sake of catching answers to things despite the moral hazard, and *why is Ed so obsessed with getting his arm and leg back* anyhow?
> 
> And by the end, we need to figure out what this "subjective value" of equivalent exchange is, and why no one has figured that out all this time. It's not about holes in the chemistry being replaced with *true* chemistry so much as it is holes in the *construction of the world* being replaced *somehow*.
> 
> (I don't know the FMA canon that well, so it's possible this is all addressed)
> 
> Even in HPMOR... shouldn't we be *more concerned* that the time turner seems to be creating instances of sentient Harry's which exist outside of time? That time turners can basically influence events however they like, by choosing their favorite self-consistent scenario?

>> **u/maaku7** [+1]  (a month later)
>> 
>> Regarding time turners, that is explained in the Fic. The time timer operates a closed time like curve. It is not changing reality to use one.

> **u/Nepene** [+4]  (an hour later)
> 
> While a decent rational story is going to explore various themes the original themes are not necessarily important. 
> 
> Harry Potter explores the theme of following authority being a great way to achieve success. HPMOR explores the theme of the hero's journey.
> 
> Most rational stories I've seen have some of their own themes, often rational ones like immortality, shades of grey and black, transcendence, emotional decisions vs rational ones and such. They have the magic of the series which may run on awesomesauce. They also have science working as normal. 
> 
> If you want to write a rational fic you may or may not care about the original issues of the plot. Often you don't, you like the magic system, don't care about the original themes, have your own themes you care about and like science.

>> **u/None** [+2]  (9 hours later)
>> 
>> > HPMOR explores the theme of the hero's journey.
>> 
>> Really?  I mean, davka to ask, what does HPMoR do to explore that theme?  Because I thought I recognized that theme being explored when I read *Dune Messiah*, yet I failed to recognize it when reading HPMoR.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2]  *Time flies like an arrow* (16 hours later)
>>> 
>>> HPMOR has dueling mentor figures, for a start, and often makes comments on what a hero would do. I would not necessarily call it an exploration of the theme though, since it's too weak to be that.

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (16 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Uhhhh... it doesn't exactly have *dueling* mentor figures.  Only Hermione really took Dumbledore all that seriously.  The Nominal Hero is just straightforwardly being mentored by an Obviously Evil former Evil Overlord, who's not just *technically* evil in storybook fashion but *actually* a manipulative sociopath.

>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+1]  *Time flies like an arrow* (16 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, dueling mentor figures in the first fifth of the book. They have a conversation about Harry choosing Quirrell over Dumbledore around chapter 20, which I think is one of the last times that Dumbledore is under serious consideration for that title by Harry (though perhaps not by the audience).

>>> **u/Nepene** [+1]  (9 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I probably shouldn't have referred to the word hero's journey. I wasn't talking about the monomyth, I merely meant it explores the idea of what the hero does in their life, in their journey.

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh.  My bad, then.

>> **u/E-o_o-3** [+2]  (15 hours later)
>> 
>> >Harry Potter explores the theme of following authority being a great way to achieve success.
>> 
>> Canon does insist that one follow the *right* authorities though. There are plenty of wrong authorities that attempt to assert upon Harry, and he does not follow them.
>> 
>> So I'd say the canonical lesson is less about authority and more about commitment to being good, which includes obeying good authorities and not obeying bad ones. And then HPMOR goes further - commitment to being good *and smart*, which sometimes means ignoring both evil and stupid-but-well-intentioned authority while following the good and wise authority, which might sometimes be your  personal self.

>>> **u/Nepene** [+2]  (18 hours later)
>>> 
>>>  Dolores is a overtly bad authority because she tries to torture and tries to kill Harry. It teaches the lesson "Don't obey authorities if they literally attempt to murder you for trivial reasons beforehand" but not really a clear lesson about good and evil.
>>> 
>>> Plus Dumbledore is hardly especially good. He often lies to and manipulates Harry. For example at the start of the first book where he deliberately lies and says that Snape is protecting Harry due to a blood debt. He creates a lot of extra unnecessary tension between the two. 
>>> 
>>> HPMOR does go more into the idea of commands and is better on that.

>>>> **u/E-o_o-3** [+2]  (22 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Fair. I mean, I never said it was an extremely *nuanced* lesson.
>>>> 
>>>> Although, Fudge is likable enough, at first, and is clearly an intentional jab against charismatic politicians.

>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1]  (23 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did Fudge actually use his authority to make Harry do anything at any time though? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not saying she believed all sources of authority were good, just people who had authority over Harry.

> **u/SaintPeter74** [+3]  (17 hours later)
> 
> I thought that part of the Rationalist movement was to get away from "Character does something stupid because they're holding the stupid stick."  In some ways it's a wish fulfillment, like much fanfiction.  "If I were superman I would just . . .<rational thing x>".
> 
> It does make me wonder:  Is it even possible to have a "rationalist" horror movie?  At least, something beyond paper clippers or MLP AI?  It seems like the vast majority of horror movies depend on the characters being complete idiots.
> 
> Rationalist Horror Movie:  
> "Let's go into that haunted house were people were killed horribly and someone recently disappeared!"  
> "That seems like a really bad idea, let's not."  
> <Heroes Walk Away>  
> The End.

>> **u/AmeteurOpinions** [+2]  *Finally, everyone was working together.* (17 hours later)
>> 
>> You should read *Coraline*, by Neil Gaiman. It's a children's story, but immensely entertaining when I read it, and a good case study for an intelligent horror story. Coraline's parents are taken by a mysterious thing, and the police don't believe her when she tries to tell them, so she equips herself before venturing into the evil lair where her parents are held.

>>> **u/SaintPeter74** [+2]  (17 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I actually have read it and it was delightful.  I was thinking more along the lines of a "traditional American horror movie", which is, admittedly, not a high bar.

>>>> **u/OffColorCommentary** [+1]  (20 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> How about the plot to the Final Destination series?
>>>> 
>>>> I have no clue how you'd get the actual plot device to make sense in a rational context (if you'd even try), but the characters themselves can behave as rationally as you want and still get offed.

>>> **u/nerdguy1138** [+1]  *GNU Terry Pratchett* (3 days later)
>>> 
>>> https://m.fanfiction.net/s/8571637/1/Determination Coraline's mom, after the movie. 
>>> Should qualify as rational-ish.

>> **u/xamueljones** [+1]  *My arch-enemy is entropy* (22 hours later)
>> 
>> /u/eaglejarl is writing a rationalist horror story called [*Pay Attention*](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/213223018/pay-attention). I haven't read it yet, since he's not done editing it, but his prior work *Baby Blues* qualifies as rational horror for me. If there's ever a movie made out of it, then I suppose it qualifies.
>> 
>> Do we have anyone willing to make the stories into movies on this subreddit?

>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1]  (23 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Thanks, glad to hear I was successful.
>>> 
>>> /u/SaintPeter74, if you would like to [read BabyBlues](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3294457/writing/Baby_Blues/BabyBlues__all_formats.zip), I'd be curious to hear whether you think it counts as rational horror.

>>>> **u/SaintPeter74** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, I'll check it out.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, loving your 2 Year Emperor.

>>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.  The second book is pretty different from the first, so I've been interested to hear people's reactions.  Let me know when you get there.

>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>> 
>> > : Is it even possible to have a "rationalist" horror movie?
>> 
>> There's half the stuff on Slate Star Codex.

> **u/MugaSofer** [+2]  (9 hours later)
> 
> I just finished watching *Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood*, and I have to disagree with you there.
> 
> Yes, part of it is about grief and family. But you can tell stories about grief and family just as easily in the real world. Fullmetal Alchemist (or Brotherhood, at least) is about grief and family *in the context* of magical science-sorcery and international politics. It's not just about the grief of losing people and how we cope with that; its also about being offered an opportunity to *bring people back*.
> 
> Which is something that never happens in real life. That's *why* the story is fantasy/science-fiction.
> 
> It is *not* set in a fantastical world so that the writers can pull some magic out of their ass to make the plot go in the direction of Real Issues". That is *bad writing*, and the show does actually do that in a few episodes, and it was extremely jarring.
> 
> That isn't "missing the point of the story". Worldbuilding is *also a part of storytelling*. That doesn't mean its the only element of a story that matters! But dismissing it entirely, to run on "Rule Of Cool", will result in less emotional engagement from your readers.
> 
> In the case of injecting "real chemistry" into the fight scenes ... well, it isn't strictly necessary; this is a medievalesque world and you can keep things simple. But it can also serve to show that the characters are experts in their field who have put thought into this, by drawing on a real field of expertise. (Or, hey, it could serve as a vehicle for Interesting Chemistry Facts. Why not? People like exploring interesting topics.)

>> **u/AmeteurOpinions** [+3]  *Finally, everyone was working together.* (11 hours later)
>> 
>> I'm sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't accusing the writers of pulling things out of their ass at all. I was just trying to communicate that if the only difference between your rational rewrite and the original is that yours contains excerpts from a chemistry textbook, *don't bother*.
>> 
>> I mean, of course you can if you really want to, but you won't make much of a difference to anything besides the combat.

>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+2]  (11 hours later)
>>> 
>>> It might help consistency, and suspension of disbelief. (Depending on how well it was done in the first place, and how well the new version worked.) It could also, potentially, serve the characterization.
>>> 
>>> But WRT the fights ... it depends what you *let* it effect, right? If they never used that added chemistry knowledge during a fight, but to (say) keep a teammate warm, then the only effect would be to add a little characterization - it wouldn't change the fights at all.
>>> 
>>> I suppose it ultimately depends on your priorities, as well as your skill. So that is a good point; maybe we're not focussing enough on some aspects of storytelling.
>>> 
>>> But to be clear - I'm not saying you accused rationalists of pulling stuff out of their ass. I'm saying that *non*-rationalist writing, not thinking out those details in favour of more "important" things, risks creating ass-pulls.

>> **u/Endovior** [+3]  (13 hours later)
>> 
>> > this is a medievalesque world
>> 
>> Lies.  FMA is clearly an early modern world; there are guns and phones and cars and such.  Tech level looks to be early 20th century, with the exception of some really awesome things like Automail (which are more advanced, not less!).
>> 
>> Delving into more complicated chemistry wouldn't be unreasonable.  It's not necessary to the plot, certainly, but it would certainly fit the background of the world-as-presented.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+4]  *Time flies like an arrow* (13 hours later)
>>> 
>>> It's fairly explicit that the era is post-WWI, if not later.

> **u/RolandsVaria** [+1]  (10 hours later)
> 
> Very well said.

---