30 KiB
New Podcast, Rationally Writing, Episode 1: What is Rational Writing? (Real link)
-
Author: u/DaystarEld Pokémon Professor*
-
Score: 36
-
Created: 2016-07-02T23:30:40
Post:
Comments:
u/DaystarEld [+9] Pokémon Professor (13 seconds later)
Finally got the first episode up! It's being hosted on SoundCloud for now and was submitted to iTunes, so soon will spread to other platforms.
/u/alexanderwales and I have more coming soon, so hope you enjoy the listen, and all feedback welcome!
u/AmeteurOpinions [+4] Finally, everyone was working together. (54 minutes later)
...Is that really the best title we have?
Somehow, both of you sound exactly as I imagined you would. The sound quality was fine, though the distance between your mouth and and microphone varied at times, but if you really plan to do this often you'll want the best mics you can get. I listen to a possibly unreasonable number of podcasts and try to think constructively about things. This may come off as nitpicky, but imagine I'm saying them in the nicest way I can.
One thing that must happen is you must expand beyond Soundcloud. Get on iTunes at least. Also, the cover image is blurred and messy, and unsuitable for the long term. Personally I've always thought the basic image for rational fiction is a large book with a dagger for a bookmark.
Speaking of which, what is the long term? You can dig into the old posts of the subreddit for material to discuss, but is that it? How often will you release episodes? How long will episodes be? Will each episode be the same length?
How often will guests appear? How many guests can even appear (I'm sure you'll have enough for now, but by episode twenty or thirty it's going to dry up). What is the criteria for selecting guests?
However, these are all minor issues compared to this one: there is nothing here I have not heard before. This episode does nothing to add to the "ongoing conversation". It only retreads it, in a format which takes much longer to consume.
You have a fundamental question which must be answered immediately: is this podcast for creators of rational fiction, or for people who haven't heard of it? This may be harsh to ask something like that from a first episode, but it's not instantly apparent to me and that's really bad.
If Rationally Writing (such a dry title) is for writers of rational fiction, it fails, because it isn't adding anything you don't get from the subreddit already. Rational writers' time would be better spent writing than listening at the reduced speed.
If Rationally Writing is an outreach podcast, then it fails, but for less severe issues. I find it very odd that the episode is titled "What is Rational Fiction" but HPMOR isn't mentioned until halfway through. Someone who knows nothing about this subreddit is better served reading the sidebar and TVTropes page, except for the fact that these pages assumed as obvious to the reader, which they may not be.
Basically, if you want this podcast to drive the "conversation" it must be much tougher and denser than it is now. It cannot summarize past conversations, or it will fail and die.
If you want this podcast to summarize the past, it must operate in a vacuum. You may not intend this podcast to expand beyond this subreddit, but if it ever does you will have to redo the first couple of episodes. I would recommend a "History of Rational Fiction" as your second episode, but you guys already said it was going to be tropes, so I'm too late. It was nice that you guys identified the different between "Rationalist" and "Rationalist-Adjacent" but there was so much more you could have said there (and so much which should be said) that it's just not going to cut it to broach topics without taking them to their conclusions.
I have a lot more to say, but this comment is much too long already. It was a decent first effort, but the podcast, like this comment, seems very... amateur.
P. S. That title is weak, but I can't think of a better one. But it must exist.
u/DaystarEld [+9] Pokémon Professor (3 hours later)
...Is that really the best title we have?
Probably not, but I'm absolutely horrendous at naming things, and we haven't thought of anything better yet :) The symmetry to Rationally Speaking felt a bit on the nose, but at the same time it succinctly describes what the point of the podcast is, albeit with the quick disclaimer that we're talking about fiction. If you think of a better one by all means let us know!
but if you really plan to do this often you'll want the best mics you can get.
Definitely a thought we've had, we'll see how the feedback for the show goes :)
Speaking of which, what is the long term? You can dig into the old posts of the subreddit for material to discuss, but is that it?
We currently have an episode idea list over 20 long, and all of it without even doing reviews or interviews, or digging into the subreddit for material, so we should be good for a fair bit.
How often will you release episodes?
Current plan is weekly.
How long will episodes be? Will each episode be the same length?
30-45 minutes, probably not as long as an hour, though it's still a bit early to tell. Some topics will warrant longer episodes, and we might split them if people prefer shorter episodes.
What is the criteria for selecting guests?
If we do guests we'll probably just reach out to other rationalist writers and ask them to come on to talk about their work or something they want to get into, or maybe even brainstorm ideas.
You have a fundamental question which must be answered immediately: is this podcast for creators of rational fiction, or for people who haven't heard of it?
With all due respect, I reject this dichotomy. Absolutely, the first episode is largely a retread for those in this subreddit. The second episode may be a bit of that too, since it's about tropes, but hopefully less so, and even less for each subsequent one. The idea of the podcast is to go into depth and analysis of the genre and process, both for those who enjoy that sort of thing and for those who are still new to it. We'd like to draw more people into the rational fiction community, and in my view at least, that includes introducing its tenets to those unfamiliar. As the podcast advances "those unfamiliar" are now familiar with it, so it's less of a concern.
If Rationally Writing is an outreach podcast, then it fails, but for less severe issues. I find it very odd that the episode is titled "What is Rational Fiction" but HPMOR isn't mentioned until halfway through.
HPMOR would be at the beginning of a conversation about "the history of rational fiction," as you imply later. But as a way to introduce it to new people, explaining its roots doesn't serve as much, in my view. Maybe I'm wrong.
I would recommend a "History of Rational Fiction" as your second episode.
So I thought about this, but really once you get past the description of what HPMOR is (a 5 minute conversation at best), another quicker one for Luminosity, and the start of the subreddit, it all gets very muddled and boring for anyone not already very invested in the culture. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear your idea for what the episode should cover.
It was a decent first effort, but the podcast, like this comment, seems very... amateur.
I hope the later episodes mark an improvement for you. If you do listen to them, I look forward to your feedback on them!
u/rumblestiltsken [+3] (4 hours later)
Considering the rational fiction community is small, gathering listeners from within is easy, just word of mouth and posting here. The goal of the name might be better posed as attracting outsiders, in which case a less descriptive title could work.
Something like "fictionality" could attract avid readers who have never heard of the genre, just because it actually sounds like a fiction podcast.
u/callmebrotherg [+4] now posting as /u/callmesalticidae (4 hours later)
Seconding "Fictionality."
u/AmeteurOpinions [+2] Finally, everyone was working together. (a day later)
...Is that really the best title we have?
Probably not, but I'm absolutely horrendous at naming things, and we haven't thought of anything better yet :) The symmetry to Rationally Speaking felt a bit on the nose, but at the same time it succinctly describes what the point of the podcast is, albeit with the quick disclaimer that we're talking about fiction. If you think of a better one by all means let us know!
Dude, it's the title. It's probably the only thing the majority of people will ever read about the show. A disclaimer is decades too late in the mind of someone idly scrolling through a list of podcasts. Your title and cover image don't sell the podcast by themselves, so people who don't know what it is without looking for it won't bother. The title needs to be changed, and before the paint dries. Consider this:
RATIONALLY WRITING is a podcast about/for:
- Writing rational & rationalist fiction.
- People who don't write rational fiction but want to learn how.
- People who don't write rationalist fiction but want to learn how.
- Writing logically sound fiction.
- Writing logically sound non-fiction.
- People who don't write fiction or non-fiction but want to learn how, with a rational/ist approach.
- Somebody who read the first five arcs of Twig and wants more.
I think your podcast is aimed at 1-4, but the title goes all the way through 5 and 7. That weakens the podcast in the long-run, irregardless of its actual content. You don't want people to be making requests for podcasts in other subreddits and needing a "quick disclaimer".
I would recommend a "History of Rational Fiction" as your second episode. So I thought about this, but really once you get past the description of what HPMOR is (a 5 minute conversation at best), another quicker one for Luminosity, and the start of the subreddit, it all gets very muddled and boring for anyone not already very invested in the culture. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear your idea for what the episode should cover.
Um, no. You referenced other rational stories at least a dozen times. It's virtually certain that you will keep using them as examples. You have to establish the major works of a canon before you can summon them offhand. Until you explain that you're going to make it harder for people who don't read everything posted here. I mean, you were the guy who took it upon himself to smooth over the opening chapters of HPMOR. Why would you do the same thing in your own podcast?
(Speaking of which, you'll need to get EY on as soon as you can)
HPMOR would be at the beginning of a conversation about "the history of rational fiction," as you imply later. But as a way to introduce it to new people, explaining its roots doesn't serve as much, in my view. Maybe I'm wrong.
I would recommend a "History of Rational Fiction" as your second episode. So I thought about this, but really once you get past the description of what HPMOR is (a 5 minute conversation at best), another quicker one for Luminosity, and the start of the subreddit, it all gets very muddled and boring for anyone not already very invested in the culture. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear your idea for what the episode should cover.
My intuition is that if you don't explicitly detail what and why HPMOR is, you'll end up implicitly referencing things about it throughout the podcast. It's better to get all of that out of the way instead of relying on your audience having read the story beforehand.
After writing and deleting this comment five times, I think my beef is that, for a podcast titled "Rationally Writing" it wasn't in-depth enough to help the writers, but it was also too dependent on the subreddit and other stories to be a proper introduction. That's why I say you need to pick a side more strongly each episode (Personally I loathe Writing Excuses since I believe it's far too shallow to be of any use, but maybe that's because my mom's a writer and I've literally heard it all before).
The best book on writing I ever read was Emotional Structure: A Guide For Screenwriters, by Peter Dunne. Unlike most writing books, it developed an entire script piece by piece as you read. In fact, it developed multiple drafts of the script, which could be very different, and discussed why a particular change was made to a character or scene. By the end of the book, there really was a complete original film script inside. I've haven't since found something which so thoroughly detailed so many facets of storytelling.
But that book wasn't an introduction to learning how to write. By ignoring 90% of the people who buy writing books (seriously, have you been to /r/writing? It's just middle school all over again), the author could make something relevant to people who had been writing things all their lives.
It's like... what sort of podcast would teach you more about writing? That would actually challenge you, and make you a much better writer? I don't really think this first episode is an episode of that podcast. And this:
So I thought about this, but really once you get past the description of what HPMOR is (a 5 minute conversation at best), another quicker one for Luminosity, and the start of the subreddit, it all gets very muddled and boring for anyone not already very invested in the culture.
is not a valid way to think about the history of rational fiction. I'm sure I could write a (long) essay about HPMOR and a (longer) one about Worm, and people in the future will do so, but why wait for the future?
Here's what I think, as a bare minimum, a "history" episode should cover. First, you start at the very beginning: LessWrong, and EY (maybe Three Worlds Collide). Then you describe HPMOR, the first few chapters of it and how people reacted to them, specifically describing how EY designed his story to bring rationalist ideals to Harry Potter fans. EY has made many comments about this, so it shouldn't be too hard at all. Then you have to talk about the readers of the HPMOR subreddit forking into /r/rational during the doldrums of HPMOR. Then you go back and time and talk about how the community tried to integrate other works like Worm and Luminosity which had many of the still-vague "qualities of rational fiction" but not explicitly rationalist, and why we have a divide right there in the sidebar. Then you can briefly highlight the original works which began to be produced in the subreddit like Branches on the Tree of Time or A Bluer Shade Of White, in chronological order.
(I just discovered that rationalfiction.io doesn't include dates for when a story was first written or published. From an antropologist's perspective, that's really irritating. Actually, there are a bunch of things about that site which irritate me. I should write a strongly worded letter.)
The point isn't to make something "only for people who are already very interested in the subculture". I reject that dichotomy. It's not the audience's job to be interested, but yours to make it interesting. You can easily cover the above paragraph in a half-hour episode. I remember visiting this subreddit many times a day, every day, and reading every comment in high school because I was watching this genre sprout from the very start and it was exciting. Recapture that spirit and you will have no problems making people who are unfamiliar into the very familiar.
Lastly, for an example of a podcast episode I believe is basically perfect, have this (extermely NSFW, trigger warning, etc. but you're an adult) episode from the Mental Illness Happy Hour. You don't have to listen to the whole thing, just the first fifteen or twenty minutes should be more than enough. I know it's completely unfair to compare episode 1 of yours to episode 266 of his, but it is not apples-to-oranges.
This isn't extremely helpful feedback, I know. I also know that I haven't made a podcast and could well be talking out of my ass. This could also be an irreconcilible difference of vision. Take it with a grain of salt. Just know that I see the potential and I will be sad if the podcast never gets there.
^^I ^^can't ^^believe ^^I ^^wrote ^^three ^^pages ^^about ^^this
u/DaystarEld [+4] Pokémon Professor (a day later)
I think your podcast is aimed at 1-4, but the title goes all the way through 5 and 7. That weakens the podcast in the long-run, irregardless of its actual content. You don't want people to be making requests for podcasts in other subreddits and needing a "quick disclaimer".
I understand, I just don't know of a better one. The recommended "Rationally Writing Fiction" feels too long and unwieldy, and "Fictionality" as someone else suggested just doesn't communicate, well, anything about what the podcast is about other than it's about fiction. And not even writing fiction, just fiction in general, which granted we'll be covering, but not as much.
Um, no. You referenced other rational stories at least a dozen times. It's virtually certain that you will keep using them as examples. You have to establish the major works of a canon before you can summon them offhand. Until you explain that you're going to make it harder for people who don't read everything posted here. I mean, you were the guy who took it upon himself to smooth over the opening chapters of HPMOR. Why would you do the same thing in your own podcast?
I'll have to consider this after I get more feedback from people both in the community and not. I understand your point: if we reference a story later in the podcast, someone listening from the beginning is more likely to understand the reference if we've explained the story. Right now I think it's just better to reference and explain them as necessary, and letting the reader pick up that, say, Luminosity is a rationalfiction of Twilight, through a quick description and some context. Maybe we didn't do a good enough job of that in the first episode, so I'll keep an eye on it for later ones.
(Speaking of which, you'll need to get EY on as soon as you can)
Yeah, that would be cool. I just figured his time is too valuable to mess around with something like this until it can be a bit refined and ensure it's not a wasted venture in general :)
After writing and deleting this comment five times, I think my beef is that, for a podcast titled "Rationally Writing" it wasn't in-depth enough to help the writers, but it was also too dependent on the subreddit and other stories to be a proper introduction... It's like... what sort of podcast would teach you more about writing? That would actually challenge you, and make you a much better writer? I don't really think this first episode is an episode of that podcast.
I can only repeat myself here and say that it was the first episode, meant to simply introduce the topic and define it. I appreciate that you have/had high hopes for the podcast: I did and do too. But I feel like you're being unrealistic in your expectations based on one episode. Maybe that's me being defensive, but I don't feel defensive. I just don't know how to deliver everything you want this podcast to be in one episode, or even two or three. It'll take a bit of time to get there, and you're welcome to wait until it does and check in with it later if you'd like.
Lastly, for an example of a podcast episode I believe is basically perfect, have this
I'll definitely check it out and respond again when I have :)
Here's what I think, as a bare minimum, a "history" episode should cover... This isn't extremely helpful feedback, I know. I also know that I haven't made a podcast and could well be talking out of my ass. This could also be an irreconcilible difference of vision. Take it with a grain of salt. Just know that I see the potential and I will be sad if the podcast never gets there.
It's extremely helpful feedback, actually, though it might just be a difference of vision, yeah. You have made me update a bit on my belief of the importance of establishing the works and what they're about though, and I do like your idea for the "history" episode trying to capture the spirit of what made so many people interested, so I'll talk to /u/alexanderwales about it.
Thanks again!
u/4t0m [+2] Chaos Legion (2 days later)
Seconding interest in a history episode like the one described by /u/AmeteurOpinions.
u/alexanderwales [+2] Time flies like an arrow (2 days later)
I'm typing up some notes on history right now. I have two big issues with it as an episode concept. First, it sort of seems like it would be better suited to something like a blog post than a free-flowing conversation (which I think we can probably deal with as topics for discussion between reading out the timeline). Second, we're both involved with that history and there's going to be an element of autobiography that I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with (but that's something I can get over).
u/AmeteurOpinions [+1] Finally, everyone was working together. (a day later)
Anytime.
u/4t0m [+7] Chaos Legion (an hour later)
Regarding the title, are you catching what I think is a bit of a joke/reference to Rationally Speaking, Julia Galef's rationality podcast?
u/AmeteurOpinions [+2] Finally, everyone was working together. (an hour later)
That does help, but I'm just not getting the nexus of both Rationality and Creative Writing. "Rationally Writing" is a title for essay advice, not webfiction.
u/None [+2] (3 hours later)
Rational Creative Writing.
u/KnickersInAKnit [+1] (3 days later)
/u/alexanderwales is too far from his mic, and/or needs a better one. Sound quality is poor from his side of the conversation. Also, use a desser/deesher for your sound clean up after recording. Sounds like you guys are using some compression, which is good.
u/4t0m [+3] Chaos Legion (2 days later)
As there don't seem to be many comments saying so, I'll note that I thought this was a very good first episode.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
Heh, thanks! What would you like to see more or less of, if anything?
u/4t0m [+3] Chaos Legion (2 days later)
Contrary to what someone else said, I actually think that you did move the conversation forward a bit regarding the genre. A lot of what you and /u/alexanderwales said here (e.g. about a ban on the Rule of Cool) has been noted in comments, but I don't think I'd heard a similar division of Rational/Rationalist to the one that was put forward here. I hope you can formalize a bit more what the genre is, and what the distinction is, such that we can improve on what we have in the sidebar, which I've never really liked.
I think your focus on the type of protagonist in the distinction between the two is a good one. I think it may be that the extent to which the protagonist is explicitly-ish a rationalist may be the deciding factor in which sort of story a work is. I mean, the puzzle thing mentioned in the sidebar is good, and important, but I think failing that test is more evidence of bad writing than of a story not fitting into the rationalist genre -- and I'm not sure that it is any more important in RST fic than in RT fic.
Another point I liked was about the rules world not just needing to be sane, but sane and accessible to the reader. This is another thing we should probably just change in the sidebar, to distance the genre specifications from "the rules of good writing," though I liked what was said on this topic as well.
Basically, I thought you each said interesting things that helped me understand what we're doing here a bit better (well, not me, really). You did advance the conversation, I think. Keep doing that :).
It would be nice if you enunciated a bit more though; I had to slow down the audio a bit from my customary 3.5x playback speed :P.
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
I'll definitely try to enunciate better in future episodes: as I mentioned elsewhere 2 and 3 are already recorded, but let me know starting in 4 if it's any better :)
u/embrodski [+3] (2 days later)
This was awesome, and has helped clarify in my mind what Rational Fiction even is, which was something I was still unsure about. I look forward to more!
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
Thanks, glad you liked it!
u/trekie140 [+3] (6 days later)
Only got around to reading the podcast now, so here's my two cents. In addition to advice on how to write characters smarter than yourself, I think you should also talk about how to write character dumber, or at least less knowledgable, than yourself since that seemed to be an issue alexanderwales brought up. Once you learn to think rationally, it becomes hard to write irrational characters.
For my second cent, I think you should also talk about genre conventions that are developing in rational fiction. For example, I finally got around to reading A Bluer Shade of White and noticed Olaf's development is based on a model of intelligence that isn't well known outside of our community. We can easily understand that Olaf is a Seed AI, but many readers wouldn't and might find it's inclusion jarring.
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (6 days later)
Thanks for the feedback!
u/Cariyaga [+2] Kyubey did nothing wrong (34 minutes later)
Will there be a transcript available? Or is that too much work? -- I wouldn't really know, never been involved in the creation of something like this.
u/DaystarEld [+4] Pokémon Professor (3 hours later)
Right now editing the sound for each episode takes a few hours, so adding another couple to put a transcript out isn't currently part of the plan. Maybe someday it can be done.
u/4t0m [+1] Chaos Legion (a day later)
I definitely don't think it's worth it for either of you to write transcripts.
u/AmeteurOpinions [+2] Finally, everyone was working together. (57 minutes later)
Transcript's are completely dependent on the time someone wants to invest. Usually it's too dull to get done without some form of payment.
Maybe we can bargain for faster The Origin of the Species chapters?
u/None [+1] (22 hours later)
A github repository for transcripts might be a start.
u/FuguofAnotherWorld [+2] Roll the Dice on Fate (13 hours later)
I'm interested in finding more podcasts that talk about writing and similar subjects. Does anyone know where to find some?
u/DaystarEld [+3] Pokémon Professor (16 hours later)
Have you tried Writing Excuses?
u/FuguofAnotherWorld [+2] Roll the Dice on Fate (20 hours later)
I hadn't, but now I'm five episodes in.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (20 hours later)
DaystarEld, move and open your mouth in an exaggerated fashion. Occasionally you round syllables together, which for a moment makes the reader pay attention to how you're speaking rather than the content of what you're saying, negatively affecting focus. Forcing your mouth to move and open more should fix it.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (21 hours later)
I'll try that, thanks. Episodes 2 and 3 are already recorded, so if you can remember by episode 4, let me know if it's any better :)
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (22 hours later)
Cheers. RemindMe! three weeks.
u/RemindMeBot [+1] (22 hours later)
I will be messaging you on [2016-07-24 21:58:03 UTC](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2016-07-24 21:58:03 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of this link.
[CLICK THIS LINK](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4qzlgr/new_podcast_rationally_writing_episode_1_what_is/d4y3zb9]%0A%0ARemindMe! three weeks.) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! d4y40fx)
^(FAQs) [^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!) [^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!) ^(Feedback) ^(Code) ^(Browser Extensions)