21 KiB
Rational Protagonists [D]
-
Author: u/Kishoto *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3m9r9u/rational_protagonists_d/
-
Score: 22
-
Created: 2015-09-25T00:29:29
Post:
So, we've all read a few stories that we'd probably call "rational". Luminosity, HPMOR, The 2YE, Waves Arisen, etc. Now, here's a question I pose. Most of the protagonists in rational stories are rational, but this also comes in a package deal with being really intelligent, it seems. Lots of book learning, calculations, etc. And lots of expose displaying said learning, whether in the character's thoughts or in speeches delivered to other characters (I'm looking at you HJPEV)
How viable is it to write a story featuring a rational protagonist that didn't do this? That didn't bother explaining how he figured out Plot A by using Theorem X and Fallacy Y (Not to the villain, obviously, he's much too genre savvy for that, but often, a rational protagonist will regale his companions with these long, intelligent discourses, clearly more for the reader's benefit than anything else) A protagonist that IS rational (intelligence not necessarily being a part of said character) and makes rational, logical moves, without all the gimmicky book learning that seems to accompany so many of our well known rational work protagonists.
In addition, feel free and link/comment stories where you find rational characters who aren't necessarily ranting on about physics, psychology or math!
P.S It's worth noting I LOVE most of that brainy word vomit. It's interesting and usually teaches me something I didn't know. I just realize that it seems to be a staple of rational protagonists, at least based on what I've read, and was wondering about what else there is to offer in rational fiction.
Comments:
u/Salivanth [+15] (an hour later)
Check the sidebar. You're asking if it's possible to have rational fiction which is not rationalist fiction. Of course it is.
Worm is a great example. The characters and world are intelligent and make sense, but there's no HPMOR-style rationality anywhere.
u/Kishoto [+7] (2 hours later)
Yes, basically. Worm is a good example.
u/Transfuturist [+2] Carthago delenda est. (5 hours later)
I'm about 80% of the way through Worm, and my attention is flagging. Is it worth finishing? I've already been spoiled on a lot of details, like the ending, I dunno. It feels too long for its own good.
u/PeridexisErrant [+7] put aside fear for courage, and death for life (6 hours later)
It could certainly use a brutal editor, but that's true of pretty much anything self-published.
All I'll say is you don't seem to have been spoiled too badly yet.
u/Transfuturist [+2] Carthago delenda est. (6 hours later)
u/t3tsubo [+5] (6 hours later)
You can skip the entire S9000 arc IMO and go straight to when they confront jack with scion watching. I enjoyed the ending so it was worth reading for me.
u/want_to_want [+3] (8 hours later)
The S9000 arc had the most horrifying moment in all of Worm, though. Skip the rest of it if you want, but do read Sting 26.6.
u/t3tsubo [+1] (8 hours later)
I feel that moment is overrated. I would have done the same without losing sleep, and if I was in Aster's position I would wish the same outcome.
u/want_to_want [+5] (8 hours later)
I didn't mean what happened to Aster, I meant the description of Gray Boy's power.
u/None [+4] (6 hours later)
I found the Slaughterhouse 9000 arc to be a bit of a slog, but it's worth getting through it. It means you're very close to the conclusion which is satisfying to read.
u/None [+1] (12 hours later)
If it makes you feel better, you're at the bad part of the story and it doesn't get any worse than this. I'd recommend skimming if it's that or dropping it.
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (18 hours later)
Worse as in bad writing or worse as in hopelessness?
u/None [+2] (18 hours later)
Both.
u/Kishoto [+1] (13 hours later)
I would say that, to get your times worth, you might as well finish it (altho that reeks of the sunk cost fallacy) because I personally hate having watched/read most of something without finishing it. I'm not sure where 80% puts you, can you tell me what non interlude part was the last you read?
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (18 hours later)
The first fight with Crimson, Winter, Cherish, and Screamer.
u/Kishoto [+1] (18 hours later)
Wow. No clue where that is. It's been way too long since I've read Worm T_T
What's the last thing that has occurred involving Taylor?
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (18 hours later)
The first fight with Crimson, Winter, Cherish, and Screamer. :P
u/Kishoto [+2] (18 hours later)
Lmfao. Oh god. Fuck worm for being so stupidly long. At the risk of giving a minor spoiler, is this pre or post time skip?
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (18 hours later)
Post. All four of those are cloned S9 members.
u/Kishoto [+2] (19 hours later)
Ahhh. The S9000s. Lol. I personally didn't enjoy that arc too much. It seemed to diminish or trivialize how threatening the Slaughterhouse 9 has been in the Wormverse. I would say Worm is worth finishing, then. The resolution to the S9000 is fairly interesting and the final conflict is a very interesting read. Both for its stakes and for the perspective we see it from. The epilogue and associated interludes are also a nice touch. Kind of a "Where are they now" sort of deal.
u/eaglejarl [+2] (2 days later)
SPOILERS FOR WORM
You know, I frequently hear Worm held up as an example of rational fiction, but it always leaves me confused. I've forgotten large swaths of the story (it was huge, and I read it a while ago), so maybe there's some important fact that I'm missing -- the fact that Worm is almost universally regarded as an exemplar of rational writing suggests I'm missing something.
Here are some of my issues with Worm as a rational story, laid out according to the points on the sidebar. Would someone please explain to me what I've missed?
- Nothing happens solely because 'the plot requires it'. If characters do (or don't do) something, there must be a plausible reason.
Capes fight each other instead of CuttingLexLuthorACheck because they have alien worms in their heads that are a literal Conflict Ball.
The worms were put there by giant aliens who are seeking a way to stop the heat death of the universe. These aliens are looking to gain power from (comparatively) primitive alien races in order to further this goal. Their idea of the best way to do this is "put alien worms in their heads that will make them fight each other" instead of "approach them diplomatically and work with them, putting alien worms in their heads for research purposes."
Contessa's "path to victory" shard showed her how to kill one of the aliens but not the other. Here's the way I remember this sequence; please correct me if I have it wrong:
- The alien (Eve?) crashed into Earth for reasons I don't remember and became injured
- Because she was injured, she accidentally handed out the PTV shard without meaning to
- She set the "don't work on me or Scion" bit on the PTV shard, but only after Contessa and Dr. Mother had used it to stab her in the neck
- From then on the PTV shard no longer worked on Scion or anything related to him. This is suspiciously convenient for the plot. Am I forgetting something?
Scion was a hero because that's what his first human contact told him to be. Then he became a villain because Jack talked him into it.
Scion started wiping out humans in all dimensions, but when attacked by capes he toyed with them instead of just killing them.
All of the capes knew they couldn't stop Scion in a straight-up fight, but that was what they did until Taylor came along and saved the day.
- Any factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil".
Did the original Slaughterhouse 9 have an agenda? I remember them simply being sadists and serial killers for the fun of it. I believe that Cherish and some others got dragged in against their will and remained reluctant, but what about the ones we met first?
- The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
No one really munchkins their power except for Taylor. Who was that Ward who could make hands come out of anything around him as long as he was touching some of the same substance? Taylor was the one who taught him to keep samples of stuff inside his costume, and to make hands come out of the hands in order to extend his reach.
Doctor Mother, Numbers Man, Contessa, think that the best way to handle the Case 53s is to wipe their memories and drop them off somewhere instead of using them in-house.
u/Kishoto [+3] (2 days later)
Well, I've never thought about it in-depth, but I feel like the shard shenanigans (PtV being blind to Scion, Conflict Balls, etc.) were implemented so that the game wasn't broken too early, and we still had a story that was somewhat recognizable as our standard caped crusaders style of fiction.
I wouldn't consider Worm to strictly be rational. Like it would never win a "Most Rational(ist) Story" pageant. But it's a lot more realistic than most conventional superhero tales, while also staying true enough to the formula that Wildbow didn't have to break the bank by coming up with a totally revised world landscape (which is what would happen, if we tried to rationalize an Earth that has had superpowers for 50+ years) As it stands, Worm is recognizably Earth, with a few superhero niceties tossed in there (the CIU, Endbringer destroyed cities, Ellesburg, etc.)
In addition, I find that most of our antagonists had reasons for their actions that made sense. The S9 were about wreaking havoc and having "fun" but the end goal for Jack was that he be remembered. That he be the story parents told their kids about to make them behave. He literally derives pleasure from being evil. Even when he goaded Scion, it was fulfilling his utility function which, handily, was to do evil. Now, it was implied that there was a lot of behind-the-scenes management that Jack was doing, to keep everyone held together, so you COULD say that was contrived. I suppose.
The other gangs also fought for their own reasons. Their ideologies were widely varied and fairly deep, and I feel those particular plots were thought out well. Each gang had its own motivation, even the Merchants. And the little conflict worms probably didn't help things at all.
And, as far as Cauldron, I honestly feel like either the PtV directed them to handle Case 53s that way, or Cauldron simply didn't care to risk keeping all of their failed experiments on hand. Some of the mutations would've been a BITCH to keep under lock and key, and it was probably more trouble than it was worth to actually hold onto all of them. The security leaks possible with so many unpredictable power sets in one secret organization facility were probably through the roof. Although I'm fairly certain Cauldron held a few in-house, for a variety of reasons.
u/eaglejarl [+1] (2 days later)
Well, I've never thought about it in-depth, but I feel like the shard shenanigans (PtV being blind to Scion, Conflict Balls, etc.) were implemented so that the game wasn't broken too early
Sure, I agree. I have no problem with the idea of the PTV shards being blind to the entities -- if you were going to hand them out, it makes perfect sense to make sure they can't be used against you. My problem is that we are canonically told that they weren't supposed to be given out, then they actually worked against Eve, and then they stopped working. Did Eve do the switch as she went brain-dead? Did Scion do it? If so, why didn't he turn off everyone's shards when he was fighting them?
I wouldn't consider Worm to strictly be rational.
Right. And yet, it's almost always included in the list of rational stories, and I don't understand why.
...Wildbow didn't have to break the bank by coming up with a totally revised world landscape (which is what would happen, if we tried to rationalize an Earth that has had superpowers for 50+ years)
Believe me, I know what that's like.
Some of the mutations would've been a BITCH to keep under lock and key, and it was probably more trouble than it was worth to actually hold onto all of them.
No argument from me, but they did keep people locked up. The first scene where Numbers Man fights, it's because a bunch of 53s are trying to escape.
u/DCarrier [+2] (2 hours later)
Does it even need that to be rationalist? Just because the main character doesn't have a bunch of book learning doesn't mean he doesn't have rationalist techniques he can teach.
u/Salivanth [+3] (3 hours later)
Technically no, but I don't think the OP was asking "Is there a way for me to do an HPMOR-rational type of story, without HPMOR-rational types of terminology?" My interpretation of the OP was "Can I make a smart character who doesn't do stupid things, without being a strict rationalist?" That's the question I answered.
That said, The Reckoning (rational Animorphs) seems to do a good job so far of showing rational characters without book learning or strict terminology.
u/LiteralHeadCannon [+19] (23 minutes later)
Worth noting that HJPEV actually makes numerous mistakes, as all human beings do. It's pretty laughable that he literally figures out that Quirrell is worth suspecting as the bad guy as Quirrell is pointing a gun at him.
u/Kishoto [+6] (2 hours later)
Haha. Yea. He had big old blinders where Quirrell was concerned.
u/None [+10] (2 hours later)
Easy to be biased in favor of yourself.
u/noggin-scratcher [+10] I am a happy tree (an hour later)
I'm sure it could be made to work, but it might occasionally run into difficulty with making it clear to the audience that there was actual rationality involved rather than authorial magic ass-pull solutions - if your protagonist makes a logically possible but genuinely difficult leap of logic in their deducing/planning/scheming, but doesn't say anything out loud to indicate their thought process (and it isn't the subject of an internal monologue or other exposition), then if the audience fails to follow along it just looks like they pulled the answer from nowhere.
Would also need to be careful to avoid swinging too far the other way, and making the plot problems and their solutions too simple/obvious so as to be sure that an audience who aren't having things explained to them will still follow along; then your rationalist looks more like the one halfway sensible person in a world of dunces.
I guess this brave new world of online fiction allows for the author and audience to actually talk, which could be the remedy; constant assurances that there really is a rationale behind it all. Although then your failure mode is losing the trust/interest of your readership if it starts to look like an exercise in obscurantist ego-stroking bullshit, with you expecting everyone to apply mass concentrated effort to your puzzles. Or if people just get plain frustrated with the difficulty level.
So whilst I feel like it could work, I also suspect it would be walking a tight-rope between multiple possible ways that it could also potentially not work. The most promising way I can picture would be to drop the author-screed level explanations and have a more pragmatic flavour of rationality applied, so that the character can summarise their reasons more concisely without listing references or giving lengthy theory explanations. Less rationalist if it stops trying to educate, but could provide enough little hooks for it to be clear that it is at least rational.
u/Nighzmarquls [+1] (5 hours later)
I ran into some of the pitfalls of this with several characters in my first completed fictional piece Deeprise.
Several characters were thinking and working on premises and never explained stuff and the audience consistently lost track of what was going on and had to consistently shore one another's perspectives up in comments.
u/Farmerbob1 [+8] Level 1 author (an hour later)
Scooby Doo was a rational show, for the most part, though it did tend to hide at least some of the clues. It's a good example of how simple rational (not rationalist) stories can be done.
u/Lugnut1206 [+7] (17 hours later)
You'd think they'd update the probabilities about the monsters and just go straight for the "it's some guy wearing a costume with a headpiece" bit after the first dozen times.
u/xamueljones [+4] My arch-enemy is entropy (a day later)
In my head cannon, they're constantly meeting the supernatural, but we only see the episodes where it's a regular human doing it.
u/clawclawbite [+3] (16 hours later)
Go read Amber by zelazney. 10 books in two sets about smart characters who learn and act, but are not academic.
u/wendigo_days [+2] (an hour later)
Dude the whole point is to do something because it makes the story logically coherent, not because it follows the convention. Do you want, you don't need precedental permission.
u/avret [+2] SDHS rationalist (an hour later)
Does knowledge of chemistry and forensics count as 'book learning'?
u/Kishoto [+2] (2 hours later)
Uhhh. I guess it's more about how the knowledge is utilized in story, as opposed to what it actually is. I was speaking more towards the lengthy academic type lectures found in a lot of rational fiction. (lectures from protag to companions, or villain)
u/Uncaffeinated [+2] (an hour later)
You could replace the discussions with other characters with internal monologues.
u/Kishoto [+3] (2 hours later)
True. But that's not exactly what I'm getting at. It's not so much that I'm asking about NOT preaching in story to characters. I'm asking about doing away with the "preaching" entirely. Internally or otherwise. As someone pointed out earlier, Worm is a very good example of a fairly rational piece of fiction (fairly.)
u/DCarrier [+2] (2 hours later)
I suspect that this is just due to us being like that. We all talk about the planning fallacy, but many people who don't know the name still notice that they can improve their first guess about how long something will take by doubling it.
u/kairisika [+2] (2 hours later)
It's very very possible. Many of those stories are in significant part author tracts on the value of rationality told in story form.
If you want it to be merely an incidental factor in your story or character, just like any other good fiction, you build the world, and then only show the reader the parts that happen to come up.
u/EliezerYudkowsky [+2] Godric Gryffindor (a day later)
Isn't Luminosity basically this?
u/Kishoto [+1] (a day later)
Luminosity has a lot of that academic exposition in the early stages, but as things get more and more crazy, it falls away. So yes, Luminosity CAN be counted as this.
u/ArgentStonecutter [+1] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (11 hours later)
How viable is it to write a story featuring a rational protagonist that didn't do this?
There's a story I forgot the name of (AGAIN) where the protagonist is just an ordinary guy, who is guarding an alien starship. He discovers the pilot is in severe pain, and can't possibly be cured, so he puts it out of its misery.
u/TimTravel [+1] (18 hours later)
A related point that's easy to forget is that rational does not mean intelligent. If you apply the intelligence (and other resources) you have as best you can, then you're rational. It's not like it's impossible to be rational just because you're not smart enough in the same way that it's not impossible to be rational just because you aren't physically strong enough. Intelligence is just one of many tools.
u/Farmerbob1 [+1] Level 1 author (2 days later)
Would 'Clan of the Cave Bear' be considered rational in this sense?
There certainly was no discussion of rationalist themes, but I recall the story as being quite rational. It's been a long time since I read it though.