scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/3dc0iy.md

## Is rationalist romantic fiction possible?

* Author: u/enfrozennard *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3dc0iy/is_rationalist_romantic_fiction_possible/
* Score: 13

* Created: 2015-07-15T02:24:29

### Post:

I would love to see what some good rationalist romantic fiction looks like. I think there's a pretty good chance this question has been asked and answered here before, but maybe it hasn't been. If it has been answered with a no, or a yes, I would appreciate your pointing me that direction. If it hasn't, let's try writing some. 

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+16]  (36 minutes later)
> 
> Where two intelligent people don't misunderstand each other over trivial coincidences, and everyone lives optimally ever after.

> **u/alexanderwales** [+12]  *Time flies like an arrow* (48 minutes later)
> 
> Absolutely possible. You can have a conflict between two characters that's driven by their values, where they have legitimate reasons not to be together which are nonetheless not strong enough to actually keep them apart. The plot is then about the resolution of that conflict through rational thought. (Alternately, romance can instead be about change and growth, which can certainly be rational.)
> 
> Have I seen it done? No, not really. There are almost certainly romantic stories that would qualify, but I don't read much romance.

>> **u/enfrozennard** [+5]  (57 minutes later)
>> 
>> I think that's certainly the way to do it, or maybe even subtly different terminal values--that could be the same thing. 
>> 
>> Why do you think there are almost certainly romantic stories that would qualify? I think of rationalist fiction as a rare and relatively new thing.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+16]  *Time flies like an arrow* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> Romance as a genre is huge. I mean ... mindbogglingly huge. "Romance" accounts for 15% of the adult fiction market. It's bigger than science fiction, fantasy, horror, and mystery *combined*. It's also a very old genre.
>>> 
>>> The odds that one of those books would be recognizable as rational fiction, even through chance alone, seems really high. But the people who write romance novels are just like you and I, so some of them probably see all the irrational things that we associate with romance and think that they want to do something different. I'm reading *Shades of Milk and Honey* by /u/MaryRobinette right now, and I would say that it comes close to hitting the genre/ethos requirements, which is about what I would expect from listening to her on Writing Excuses (though it's a romance in the same way that *Pride and Prejudice* is a romance, and sometimes that's classified as a novel of manners). That's just me having a single toe dipped in the genre; I feel certain that if I had read every romance novel ever, I would be able to find something that qualifies.

> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+7]  (an hour later)
> 
> My general opinion of romance is that the "romantic subplot" gets an unfair bad rap.  I prefer stories *with* romance to stories that *are* romances.  The problem with the romantic subplot is when it feels shoehorned in (Harry/Ginny, cough cough), but this is generally a problem of the author giving the couple insufficient focus, not too much focus.

> **u/timoni** [+15]  (2 hours later)
> 
> I thought Alicorn's [Luminosity](http://luminous.elcenia.com/) did a great job with a rational Bella working through her crazy teenaged hormones. Very enjoyable. Of course it's a supernatural pairing, but that's dealt with in a reasonable way in the constrains of the universe.

>> **u/tadrinth** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> I will second that and also link to her various [Elcenia](http://elcenia.com/) books, which usually involve some amount of romance.  Warning: extreme feels, project is on hiatus.

>> **u/elevul** [+2]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>> 
>> No it didn't. Or, at least, it did right until the moment she was turned, after which all rationality on her part disappeared.

> **u/FeepingCreature** [+4]  *GCV Literally The Entire Culture* (8 hours later)
> 
> Can I recommend [The Fall of Doc Future](http://docfuture.tumblr.com/post/82363551272/fall-of-doc-future-contents)? I think it comes pretty close.

>> **u/abstractwhiz** [+1]  *Friendly Eldritch Abomination* (4 days later)
>> 
>> Seconded.

> **u/None** [+4]  (16 hours later)
> 
> As always, the correct answer is yesbut.
> 
> Yes, but the conflict turns to something surrounding the romance.
> 
> Romeo and Juliet, for instance. They meet, they fall in love (and recognize that it's infatuation, maybe, and likely to be ephemeral), they bemoan their family circumstances, they realize they can unite their families, Romeo maybe still fakes his death but finds a more reliable way of reassuring Juliet, they fight the prejudices of their respective families and engineer an uneasy truce and lead them through a denouement.
> 
> Luminosity. The love story takes much of the first book, and then it quickly switches gears once that's resolved and there's a whole mess of werewolves and vampire nobility causing problems everywhere.
> 
> Alternatively, you can have a one-sided romance, but if the person in love in that situation cares at all about the other person as more than a trophy, it's over very quickly. And if they don't, that's not romance.

> **u/ArgentStonecutter** [+3]  *Emergency Mustelid Hologram* (9 hours later)
> 
> The Miles Vorkosigan series?

>> **u/None** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> I'd say yes.

>>> **u/ArgentStonecutter** [+2]  *Emergency Mustelid Hologram* (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I think there's one running through the intrigue and adventure of the Foreigner series, too. The relationship between Brent and Jago is possibly the most cerebral romance possible.

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> People keep telling me I should read that one.

>>>>> **u/ArgentStonecutter** [+2]  *Emergency Mustelid Hologram* (10 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> You should read that one.

>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (11 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ಠ_ಠ ... ok.

> **u/monstertrucktoadette** [+2]  (5 minutes later)
> 
> I don't know of any but I think it's possible.   IMO it would involve applying rationalist methodology to feelings and only acting on them when they make sense.

> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+2]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (20 hours later)
> 
> While many will object due to political spiders I'd put forth *Atlas Shrugged* and *The Fountainhead* as intresting examples, that are rationalish, if not rationalist, but buy into the true love myths.

> **u/resurrexia** [+2]  *stupiditynowofferswisdom* (2 minutes later)
> 
> Weeeeell... HPMoR does imply growing romance between HJPEV and HJG, even if it is not actively acted on.
> 
> Would be nice to see a full-blown rationalist romance story though.

>> **u/enfrozennard** [+11]  (8 minutes later)
>> 
>> I don't think any story where the main character admits to have not yet developed the psychological capacity for sexual attraction... should be categorized anywhere near "romantic fiction". What I want is as romantic as it is rational; square in the middle of their intersection in thing space.

>>> **u/None** [+3]  (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> [removed]

>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (17 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> They are close friends. Why do people find it so difficult to see friendship between humans of different genders? Why do people insist on seeing romance instead?
>>>> 
>>>> This is part of the social background that leads to the so-called "friend zone" -- people with healthy ideas about interpersonal relationships see someone being nice to them and think it's a sign of friendship, but people like you assume it has to include sexual interests.
>>>> 
>>>> If that isn't creepy enough, people start talking about romantic intent when two infants of different assigned genders tolerate each other.
>>>> 
>>>> This whole urge to sexualize every interaction between genders is creepy and has to stop.

>>>>> **u/Anderkent** [+4]  (18 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dunno, I had exactly the opposite impression; I don't see romance as inherently sexual. Once can totally be romantically attracted to someone without being sexually attracted to them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's a difference between friendship, where you have shared interests and mutual trust, and romance; where you find the other persons personality and behaviour so captivating you cannot take your thoughts off them. Both can be combined with sexual attraction.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > people like you assume it has to include sexual interests
>>>>> 
>>>>> this is just unnecessarily rude and insuting.

> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+1]  (an hour later)
> 
> By the way, a particular idea has come to the surface of my brain several times over the past few years - the first time I thought of it was before I encountered the rationalist community, actually.  The essence of the idea is a retelling of the classic Pygmalion story featuring an AI researcher and his project.  I seriously doubt I'll ever get around to it - I have no shortage of ideas - and therefore I invite anyone to take on this nugget of an idea.  It seems like fertile ground for rationalist romance to me.

> **u/Nepene** [+1]  (10 hours later)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYGzRB4Pnq8
> 
> Is one example.

> **u/eaglejarl** [+1]  (11 hours later)
> 
> [I'm working on one.](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11087425/1/) [Team Anko, that is.]

> **u/Anderkent** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> I wouldn't call them rationalistic but I quite enjoyed the [Kushiel's Legacy series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushiel%27s_Legacy), which combines romance with agenty protagonists and a fun world. You might want to see if that's your cup of tea.

> **u/TheEquivocator** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> How about a story where their emotions are too strong for them to check rationally, so they have to rationally deal with them instead?

> **u/jdogmoney** [+1]  (2 days later)
> 
> Boy I sure hope so...

---