65 KiB
[D] [RT] Does the overabundance of rational fanfiction hurt the reputation of rational fiction in general?
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 48
-
Created: 2017-07-10T18:21:56
Post:
[deleted]
Comments:
u/Afforess [+42] Hermione Did Nothing Wrong (30 minutes later)
I think that the high volume of rationalist fanfiction is a natural growth of a new genre. There are a lot of existing fantasy/scifi works that are viable targets for fanfics, and so these are the low-hanging fruit. That someone is doing the labour and picking these low-hanging fruits is a good sign, it means there's pent-up demand for the material.
I think the next stage of the growth of the genre will happen when the fanfic readers/authors age a bit, and start writing for real (TM). There are early signs this is already happening - I like to think /u/salaris (Andrew Rowe), ShaperV (E William Brown), /u/FekketCantenel (Fiona van Dahl), /u/Raelifin (Max Harms) are the leading edge of rationalist authors. Other authors (Dennis Taylor, Brandon Sanderson?) are
stealingreusing the best ideas from rationalism and incorporating it in their works. So I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll see the genre grow, change, and be incorporated in more works.
u/vakusdrake [+44] (49 minutes later)
One should also not forget Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of everything is crap, other genres just make this slightly less obvious because they are popular enough that you don't hear about quite as much of the terrible stuff. You should expect that the more popular something becomes the more the refuse simply doesn't come to your attention.
u/Xtraordinaire [+44] Team Glimglam (an hour later)
The other genres are just barely escaping this. Something as broad as fantasy was basically regarded as a low-grade shit not so long ago. It took a major success of Hollywood adaptations for the public to start taking fantasy seriously, even though it had good books all along.
Yep, there is a gruesomely long way ahead of rational fiction.
u/vallar57 [+9] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (2 hours later)
fantasy was basically regarded as a low-grade shit not so long ago.
And now it's regarded as low-to-mid grade shit, barely an improvement. How often does a fantasy book win a Man Booker, a Pulitzer or a Nobel?
u/Xtraordinaire [+8] Team Glimglam (3 hours later)
If a potential reader dismisses a piece just because it has (or hasn't) elves in it, it is a problem. If he doesn't, it's a fundamental step up, as the work now has a non-zero chance to stand on its own merit.
u/Salaris [+20] Dominion Sorcerer (14 hours later)
Thanks for the shout out!
While I do draw some of my inspiration from rational fiction personally, I think there have been some other lines of genre development that are producing similar results. Hard fantasy as a genre predates the more recent concept of rational fiction, and shares many of the same characteristics.
Sanderson isn't stealing/reusing rational fiction ideas - his works predate them. (Elantris was published in 2005, and the Mistborn trilogy from 2006 to 2008. HPMOR started in 2010.) And Sanderson wasn't the first to write in this style - his "Laws of Magic" just popularized the idea.
I actually see this as a good thing - Sanderson's works predating/paralleling the development of rational fic just helps put more content out there that's going to be inspired by similar ideals.
I've drawn some influences from both Sandersonish traditional fiction and rational fic; I'd say that Forging Divinity was primarily Sanderson-inspired, whereas Sufficiently Advanced Magic was highly influenced by things like HPMOR and Mother of Learning.
All my books also draw from my background as a Systems Designer. My books are set in a universe I've been using for tabletops and LARPs for the last two decades. The cosmology iand some of the magic systems are drawn from those games, although the more recent one in Sufficiently Advanced Magic is more JRPG inspired. I'm also a professional game designer, and gaming is a big part of what has influenced the clear forms of progression and challenges in my writing.
You can see other people with gaming inspiration that write similar works - Maoyuu, Rokka no Yuusha, and Log Horizon, for example, all have similar elements to rational fiction, but they seem to draw primarily from gaming as their inspiration for this kind of rational/internally consistent style.
I'm digressing a bit here, but my core point is actually that I think there have been parallel developments that have led to similar styles of fiction.
Sanderson embracing the idea of hard magic systems and internal consistency has done a lot for popularizing these concepts in the fantasy community - which is a good thing for rational fiction, because rational fiction is extremely similar to what Sanderson is writing and popularizing.
u/Afforess [+6] Hermione Did Nothing Wrong (20 hours later)
I agree that a confluence of genres have been coming together towards the same sort of alignment. I mentioned Sanderson because his most recent works feels very much ripped from the pages of Mother of Learning or similar time-loopy stories. That's why I referenced Sanderson - not because I think his older works are the slightest bit rational, but because his latest works feel like a departure from his style, maybe into rationalism.
There's also a rising bubble of consistent literature, namely the genres you mentioned: JRPG, LitRPG, Hard Fantasy, etc, where the universes are designed to have internally consistent rules. Sanderson is famous for this and his laws of magic. In these genres, authors agree to give up rule-breaking in exchange for credibility; the magical universe JK Rowling designed is silly and falls apart under scrutiny, the story only survives on the strength of the cast, the magical universe of Sanderson's cosmere is interesting, even devoid of a cast. However consistent literature isn't rationalist literature, but it often can feel like rational-lite.
u/Salaris [+1] Dominion Sorcerer (a day later)
I agree that a confluence of genres have been coming together towards the same sort of alignment. I mentioned Sanderson because his most recent works feels very much ripped from the pages of Mother of Learning or similar time-loopy stories.
Haven't read that one yet, so I can't comment on it.
That's why I referenced Sanderson - not because I think his older works are the slightest bit rational, but because his latest works feel like a departure from his style, maybe into rationalism.
I feel like most of Sanderson's works tend to meet the bullet points on the sidebar for rational fiction, just not rationalist fiction. That's pretty subjective, though.
There's also a rising bubble of consistent literature, namely the genres you mentioned: JRPG, LitRPG, Hard Fantasy, etc, where the universes are designed to have internally consistent rules. Sanderson is famous for this and his laws of magic. In these genres, authors agree to give up rule-breaking in exchange for credibility; the magical universe JK Rowling designed is silly and falls apart under scrutiny, the story only survives on the strength of the cast, the magical universe of Sanderson's cosmere is interesting, even devoid of a cast. However consistent literature isn't rationalist literature, but it often can feel like rational-lite.
I think you're just being stricter about the definition of rational fiction than I am, which is fine - there's no hard line on any genre definition. (People still argue about whether or not Star Wars counts as sci fi or fantasy, after all.)
u/None [+14] (an hour later)
[deleted]
u/Roxolan [+16] Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager (4 hours later)
As for the point about overpowered rationalist characters and 'giving Sauron the Death Star' — am I the only one recently getting a hankering to just write straight-up wish fulfillment and competence porn
As the author of the linked rant: please do! I love them! I'm just disappointed when they run out of satisfying challenges to steamroll yet just keep going, which is a common problem. Please plan your ending ahead of time.
(I've actually drifted out of reading the rationalist!Animorph precisely because of excess darkness.)
u/InfernoVulpix [+8] (20 hours later)
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of overpowered protagonists and wish fulfillment is Hope Through Overwhelming Firepower. It's a worm fic that imports Taylor's different power from a universe where the power scales are so much larger than Worm's that Taylor really faces little threat. Admittedly, the power is crippled when she gets it and needs to repair itself, so at first Taylor's 'just' a very powerful Blaster, but she quickly gets stronger and just as quickly tries to figure out how she can use her powers to help. When I look back on it, though, despite the fact that Taylor never really feels like she's in true danger, I generally think of it as a fun romp that didn't overstay its welcome.
Another thing that comes to mind is One Punch Man. As a premise, by all rights it should be boring. "Invincible guy who kills everything he fights in one punch". What can you do with that? Do you throw enemies at him who are too fast to hit, or something? But the setting only affirms Saitama as invincible, instead focusing on his inability to get proper recognition for his heroic works or the struggle of the side characters who, while strong, can face true danger so long as Saitama's not there to insta-win the fight.
If I may get analytical, I would guess that when people say conflict is needed for good stories, it's referring to how conflict draws outcomes into doubt in meaningful ways. When whether your protagonist will live or die depends on whether he can win the fight against Evil Monster Man, your immersed self isn't confident that the protagonist will survive, and the future is cast into doubt. For something like One Punch Man, once you're invested in Saitama getting the recognition he deserves, and Saitama then goes and does another amazing thing, the immersed you wants to know but can't be sure whether Saitama will get recognition. For a peaceful story, then, what you first need is to immerse people in the story, and then you need to find a way to draw the future into doubt. An easy option for this is research and experimental results, if the protagonists' plans depend on the experiment working out one way, you can build up tension and anticipation for the result just the same as if there was actual conflict and struggle.
u/JackStargazer [+7] Primordial Apologist (a day later)
The One Punch Man analogy is actually very good. I think you capture it well.
If challenge isn't going to be the main point of the story, there has to be some non-violent conflict that the plot turns on.
This is like playing a tabletop roleplaying game with a group who has optimized for combat. If you want something they can't just steamroll, make them do some things subtly or with intrigue.
u/None [+0] (an hour later)
[removed]
u/alexanderwales [+26] Time flies like an arrow (2 hours later)
am I the only one
Probably not
Banned this bot for increasing the noise-to-signal ratio.
u/Ozimandius [+14] (3 hours later)
Well, I think for some budding rationalist authors early in their writing attempts, a pre-established world to play in to work on the rationalist aspect of writing is a great starting place. A perfect example is Alexander Wales who wrote Metropolitan Man and Branches on the Tree of Time as rational fanfiction, but has moved into world-building fiction like Glimwarden, Shadows of the Limelight, and a few good original world short stories.
One of the major flaws in your theory is simply that you are primarily looking at free online works of fiction which obviously is going to bring in a fair number of budding authors with little editing. If you do the same with almost any other genre, the free online material is going to have a notable quality drop and probably have more examples of fanfiction. That's not a disservice to any particular genre it is just the nature of online writing.
u/tonytwostep [+11] (3 hours later)
That’s fair. For the genre of RF, it seems like most if not all explicitly rational works are in the “free online” category - but this is likely tied in with /u/Afforess ’s point that rational fiction is a very new genre, and currently we’re witnessing the growing pains of its development.
As a separate, but related point: in my mind, Metropolitan Man stands somewhere close to the border between rational fanfiction and original rational fiction. Wales didn’t take an existing story and add in rational characters/elements; he took a few well-known characters, added more rational thought processes and motivations to said characters, and then wrote an entirely original story around them.
Maybe that’s simply the difference between good and bad fanfiction (which seems supported by Yudkowsky’s Rules of Fanfiction), but when so much fanfiction falls into the latter group, perhaps more categorical distinctions (or, as /u/FekketCantenel suggests, some specific RF awards) are needed.
u/FekketCantenel [+10] I know some of these words (3 hours later)
all this talk is making me want to establish an award for rationalist fiction
but then I wouldn't ever be able to win it ◕ ◡ ◕
u/alexanderwales [+5] Time flies like an arrow (5 hours later)
Well, there is the Intelligence in Literature Prize given out by MIRI.
u/LupoCani [+10] (2 hours later)
Regarding your second bullet point, I think we have a phrase for this- If you make Frodo a Jedi, you must give Sauron the Death Star. Powering up the protagonist is one thing, powering up everything else to match is another.
A second problem is the sustainability of conflict. Two people with clubs, and two people with guns, are equally balanced conflicts, but the latter will still be over much faster. The best example, I think, is Rules of Wishing. Alladin, Jasmine and Jafar are all savvy enough to roughly match each other, but since the powers quickly escalate to WMD levels, it's all over in a couple of "moves" anyway.
u/ketura [+19] Organizer (3 hours later)
The claim that it's a writing cop out to use someone else's world for a rational fic is ridiculous--in fact, it's the opposite. In an original work, if it's found that such-and-such a plot point is irrational or dumb, then the author can shrug their shoulders and unilaterally change the rules of the world to avoid the issue. When using someone else's world, rather than ducking around the issue, the writer is more often than not forced to explain why it's consistent. This may result in minor alterations or reinterpretations, but it's vastly more intellectually honest than being able to define the world from the start. It invokes the imagery of a physicist struggling to explain the phonomenon around them, and not painters slapping paint wherever they damn well feel like putting it, even if it clashes.
Consider Metropolitan Man. If this were an original rational work, with a freakish alien coming to earth with the powers of a demigod, is there any guarantee that it has a weakness, let alone a magic rock? Does it follow from that simple premise that Superman must have an easily applied Achille's heel? I don't think so, and discovering that he was weak to copper would be considered incredibly narratively lazy and convenient. But Alexander Wales wasn't working with just his own world, he was reconstructing someone else's, and so he was forced to explain why Kryptonite was a thing.
Given the premise of "Superman exists, and his greatest ally is a reporter and his greatest enemy is a businessman and his greatest weakness is a green rock", Wales was forced to constrain his work within those sharply defined boundaries. There can be no cop-outs, no asspulls, no deus ex machina where it would come in conflict with the basic premise. An original work can redefine the premise at will. A rational fanfiction has no such flexibility and is thus anchored by its original canon, lest it cease to be Superman.
u/Kishoto [+8] (10 hours later)
The claim that it's a writing cop out to use someone else's world for a rational fic is ridiculous--in fact, it's the opposite.
I disagree. While I wouldn't reach so far as to call it a cop out (though we've all run across some works that cop out hard), I think it's much easier to write something in a world that's already been made for you. Like...orders of magnitude easier. This doesn't mean writing a good story is easy. But it's definitely less work, both from a creative and actuary standpoint.
u/Ozimandius [+8] (3 hours later)
Well, I disagree that it is easier to handwave something and alter the rules of the world around problems that crop up. The internal conflicts within an existing world propel the writing forward in a way that is much more difficult in your own world. Having too many choices about what to write about is a far tougher problem for an author than working inside constraints. Which is why it is much easier for new authors to approach existing worlds.
u/DaystarEld [+10] Pokémon Professor (10 hours later)
I agree that it's easier to write fanfiction than original fiction, and even that it's easier to write rational fanfiction than original rational fiction, but I would say that a lot of the unique value of rational fiction can only really manifest in fanfiction, and that it takes a particular skill to do it that is not found in any other kind of fiction.
So I do think there are aspects to it that make rational fanfics harder in many ways than non-rational original works, even accounting for the ways fanfics are easier to write in general.
u/None [+3] (17 hours later)
Fanfic authors use the fact that they’re building off of well-known canons to completely skip any significant world-building or character detail. Not only does this naturally exclude readers who aren’t as familiar with the original canon, but it seems like a bit of a writing copout - the fanfic author is essentially piggy-backing off of the “heavy lifting” of the original canon.
Point, but this is essentially the same thing that new writers in established IPs (comics, movies, any other collaborative work on a single canon) do all the time. Any author writing in a genre using tropes is doing this too, to a greater or lesser extent, and I've seen fanfictions with better character development than published novels. To be derivative is to be human, fanfiction just embraces it as a contraint and jumping-off point.
Related to the above, because these rational fanfics often don’t have the same “meat” (character development, fully fleshed out rational worlds, etc) behind them as their original counterparts, they usually end up abandoned. I’ve found very few rational fanfic stories that are actually finished.
Counterpoint: Stories go unfinished all the time, both in and out of the set of rational fanfics. When something's released serially online as it's being written, of course you see more examples of abandoned work, and it just happens that "released serially online" is the usual medium for ratfic.
What you're talking about is nothing new. It's the logical result of the principle that 90-99% of everything written is bad. It's part of the growing pains of a new genre. When very few people write in the style, someone who likes the genre quickly runs out of their 1-10% slice of goodness into the morass of poorly-conceived, abandoned, and badly-written work out there. I know this, because I've written a few poorly-conceived, badly-written, and ultimately abandonned bits of ratfic. Writing is hard.
Fanfic itself is smack-dab in the middle of this. The sheer accessibility (to writers) and availability (to readers) of the genre means that people tend to see the 99% of awful fanfic much more clearly than the 1% of good stuff. Ratfic, insofar as it overlaps with fanfic, is tarred by this as well. This isn't a judgement, just an observation. Fantasy and sci-fi went through the same crisis over the last half-century. You've got Heinlein, and then you have the pulp magazine featuring an alien robot kidnapping a naked woman. You've got Ursula K. LeGuin, and then you have muscly orcs kidnapping a naked woman.
So, yeah. I'd argue that you're essentially right. The high volume of bad things tarnishes the good things by association. The bad things are mostly fanfic, because that has the lowest barrier to entry, just like bad fantasy tended to center around a few archetypes, or student films fall into the same traps of bad cinema over and over.
However, I'd argue that it's a bit silly to try and do anything drastic about it. Any step we take to "curate" the volume of rational fiction means raising the barrier to entry, which is unfeasible and contrary to the point. Writers get better by writing, so let them write. We could start petitioning writers to start removing records of abandoned work from the internet, I guess, but that's a lot of work that fixes the symptoms, not the issue.
I think the trick here is basically: wait, and write. Sometimes someone new will write something really cool, even if it's abandoned. Someone else might be inspired by that, and write something they actually finish. That has new ideas that get disseminated. And so on. Eventually, the cream floats to the top. Removing milk doesn't get you more cream. The only way to do that is to keep adding, and keep churning. (I don't actually know how cream is made)
So, ways to improve: provide mentorship and community to people who want to write ratfic. Allow discussion of new ideas, and embrace both originality and iterative improvement on that which has come before. Make writing good ratfic more accessible rather than trying to make writing bad ratfic less accessible.
It looks like the rest of the community has weighed in with basically similar points, but this is my take on it.
u/Kishoto [+3] (10 hours later)
I think part of the reason that there are so many rational fanfictions as opposed to original ratfic is that it's easier in many ways to make a rational fanfiction than it is to make an original fiction. It takes much less work overall and I think we can all agree that writing rational fiction at all takes more work than the average story.
It's easier for me to look at Naruto and say "well, of course chakra gundams make no goddamn sense based on the rules established!" than to create an entirely new world with a consistent set of rules and lore that manages to still be entertaining. Fanfiction makes writing overall easier (not that writing good fanfiction is easy but, outside of hardcore AU's, the canon provides a framework for you to "lean" your work against.)
u/serge_cell [+3] (13 hours later)
Wot overabundance?
u/Trudar [+2] (20 hours later)
TL;DR: I think the more the merrier, and we have to live with consequences if we want to read more good works.
Think of it as a lure. When genre becomes popular, more people who like to write and create just wonder about, and then may try their luck and ultimately, whether their fruits of labour of (writing) love are good or not, they will learn, and possibly spread the word further.
Problems is, when genre has famous independent works that you can count on fingers of one hand, it shows its infancy. When the volume of written stories is high, probability of writers with good potential popping out is higher - and we want that.
You seem to criticize bad fanfiction stories. But it doesn't have to have anything to do with worldbuilding or lack of it. You can take a EU and play with it - and your protagnist may as well bulldoze trought obstacle, or hit a wall devised by great antagonist, that will end up in high quality confrontation. Setting place for such events also takes certain skill, if you want your alterations to the universe to stay within predefined limits, especially if the changes are subtle. It's just different type of skill than playing a god and starting from scratch.
But is it something bad, that authors skip the 'design from zero' phase? I think not - this is not a defining characteristic of a good story - even badly written one, with lot of mistakes from lack of experience can be entertaining, no need to thwart further efforts. Quite the contrary, I think - because writers need to practice on something. Constructive criticism needs source material.
If anything, more threads akin to worldbuilding should appear here, like 'applied rational villainy 101: guide to creating conflicts and escalation', or 'how not to OP'.
But statistic is a bitch: It is unavoidable, that at some point there will be flood of low-effort stories, and you can't do anything about it, because where there is no will (hence low-effort, no low-quality, that's the effect, not the cause), there will be no learning.
In the end we will point out and promote good works - so writers coming across new challenge will instantly see the better material - and I think this is exactly what this subreddit is about.
u/IgonnaBe3 [+3] (4 hours later)
So i know its kinda offtopic but i dont think Worm, Mother of learning or Practical Guide to Evil ever were specifically meant to be written as "rational" fiction described in the side bar.
Those 4 rules are basically rules of ANY good book and adding an additional label to them as rational fiction irks me because then most of well made fiction would be rational. In most good books things dont happen from nowhere. In most books characters act on their beliefs and values as it humanizes them and consistent rules are almost a must, really. Ofcourse it varies from book to book but they are the general things you could find in any decent one.
I am glad the authors get the recognition they deserve as i have enjoyed their works and i wish them luck. Sorry for the offtopic but it always annoyed me and i wanted to get it out and the thread seemed somehow aproporiate.
On to the subject of your question its the same with everything. Majority of fiction is crap, you just dont see it because it filtered by publishers, reviewers and popularity. its just especially evident on internet because everybody and their mother, aunt, uncle, daughter and nephew can make an account of fictonpress, royalroad, wordpress, wattpad and start writing from the get go if they have anything of an artistic bone in their body or just enough of willingness to put these hours in. Its not always good and is mostly atrocious because they have never attempted writing before or learned anything worth noting from school.
u/PeridexisErrant [+14] put aside fear for courage, and death for life (7 hours later)
Those 4 rules are basically rules of ANY good book
I have to disagree here - rational-ising Star Wars would make it a different movie, and probably not a better (more enjoyable, culturally impactful) one. "Rational" works of Lovecraft... wouldn't work. Discworld is, for want of a better word, antirational and all the better for it.
Sure, those four rules are key for realistic fiction aiming to evoke particular responses in the reader - but it's certainly possible to write excellent fiction without them.
u/tonytwostep [+2] (a day later)
Well, if you agree with r/rational ’s 4 rules as being the criteria by which we judge fiction as rational or not, then Worm, MoL and PGtE are pretty clearly rational fiction, regardless of whether their authors explicitly intended them as such. I think this is fairly true of any genre - if we came up with some explicit criteria for Romance books, for instance, and someone wrote a Fantasy book that hit all those criteria, then we could certainly also consider it a Romance as well.
If you DON’T agree with the 4 rules, then what criteria would you use? If rational fiction just consists of works whose authors have decided to self-label them as RF, then the genre is more or less completely subjective, and the rational fiction label has no meaning.
And I fully agree with /u/PeridexisErrant ’s point - you may tend to enjoy novels that follow those 4 rules, but those rules are clearly not the “basic rules of any good book”. Lord of the Rings hits maaaaybe two of those rules, yet it still seems pretty well regarded…
u/IgonnaBe3 [+1] (a day later)
So, for me 2nd and 3rd rule can be summarized by "Have good characters". A good character in a novel/book shouldnt be treated like a plot point but like a real human being in the story with his own worries, desires etc. and 1st and 4th rule is basically dont do "deus ex machina" although the 1st ones goes for consistent characterization too.
Ofcourse some books may follow it to some larger or smaller extent in which case for example a soft magic system wouldnt be exactly "rational" but usually it still avoids deus ex machina to not undermine narrative tensions and still follows certain even if irrational and not logical rules so the reader knows what to expect to some extent.
And maybe not all or even most books follow those 4 rules to every letter but i guarantee you that it would still be quite a lot of fiction and suddenly the genre of rational is incredibly big.
On the other hand the definition of rational is very broad also so i guess it encompasses a lot.
u/Tetrikitty [+4] (19 hours later)
I feel that this is probably a signalling problem.
Claiming that your fic is rational is, essentially, a free signal. This means that anyone who wants to claim this can, and will, use the signal, which renders it meaningless.
u/Evan_Th [+7] Sunshine Regiment (a day later)
I don't think it is a free signal, though.
First, there're a number of people with a bias against the rationalist movement, so labeling a fic rational will hurt your readership there.
Second, the ratfic community is quite willing to criticize ratfics for being irrational. Keeping a fic rational is hard, labeling your fic rational means you've opened yourself up to criticism there too.
u/TheAtomicOption [+2] (2 hours later)
I disagree with your premise that there's an overabundance of rational fiction.
Rational fiction is about one common problem that fiction writers often fail to solve--characters making really stupidly unrealistic decisions . But there are lots of other problems, like the ones you list, that it says nothing about. The problem is that there aren't enough extremely skilled writers who solve all of these problems, not that there is too much rational fiction.
u/vallar57 [+7] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (2 hours later)
The OP's post wasn't about that at all...
u/Sophronius [+1] The Need to Become Stronger (18 hours later)
Hm, it I guess it's true that there's some fanfic recommendations floating around that I wouldn't classify as rational. Then again, tastes differ. For example, I don't think Time Braid should be considered as such, but I know many others here do, so meh.
For me it's not a problem unless a couple of stories are updated with such frequency that they drown out other, more high-quality stories. Right now each post stays on the front page for about a week though, so I don't think that's the case.
The one time I did hear someone complaining about fics recommended on this subreddit, it was about that one Deathnote fic. Not that it was badly written or anything, but just that the rational concept still hadn't been moved along after ~7 chapters. That sort of thing probably does turn people off from following recommendations here.
u/Jiro_T [+0] (a day later)
Mother of Learning is D&D-based, so it should count as fanfiction.
I would also question Worm being RF.
u/tonytwostep [+2] (a day later)
Well, from what I can tell the author of MoL only cites D&D as one in a list of influences, albeit a major one. So I don’t think that falls under the category of fanfiction - it’s an original story with original characters, in an original setting, that happens to use some spells/items/etc from D&D (or more realistically, from the broader fantasy genre in general; D&D isn't the first or only world to have a Fireball spell, for instance).
This can be contrasted with Two Year Emperor, which revolves around a rational character in an explicitly D&D world, completely beholden to the literal D&D rules.
And I’d be interested in hearing your arguments why Worm doesn’t qualify as RF. While it wasn’t explicitly written as such, it very clearly hits all the RF criteria.
u/Jiro_T [+1] (a day later)
D&D isn't the first or only world to have a Fireball spell
If D&D wasn't the first, what is? I was under the exact opposite impression: The fireball spell did not exist in fantasy literature until introduced by D&D. There were spells that created balls of fire, but the kind of spell which resembles a grenade and covers a big area whether you want it to or not basically never existed.
And I’d be interested in hearing your arguments why Worm doesn’t qualify as RF.
Worm has some rational moments, like when Skitter tries to use her powers efficiently, but much of Worm is only rational in the trivial sense that any character who says "I'm doing this for a plan" is rational. Cauldron, the Simurgh, and the conflict drive are, from a Doylist view, completely arbitrary, even though Cauldron claims to have a plan and people acting because of a conflict drive are technically acting for a reason.
This is made worse by the propensity of both the author and fans to explain away random inconsistencies and random arbitrary character actions in Worm by invoking one of those.
Fan explanations in general are also a problem, even when they don't cover one of those. It's easy to invent a reason why some character does something, which is consistent with the story, but is not stated in the story. That doesn't make the story rational.
u/tonytwostep [+2] (a day later)
If D&D wasn't the first, what is?
Apparently the fireball spell predates even D&D. But my broader point is, presently the fireball spell has expanded well beyond D&D, and is used in all sorts of other media (books, movies, games, etc). Same with many of the other spells in MoL. So while I agree that D&D is an influence on the work, it’s certainly not D&D fanfiction.
Cauldron, the Simurgh, and the conflict drive are, from a Doylist view, completely arbitrary
Worm spoilers below
...
Are they? Cauldron’s drive seems completely logical to me.
Their founders discovered early on that Scion was actually an extra-terrestrial being with the power to easily demolish all of humanity on a whim. So their motive is the destruction of this entity, and the protection of the human race - very similar to the clearly RF premise of Metropolitan Man. They attempt to accomplish this by artificially creating more powerful parahumans, to either find a specific power that can destroy Scion, or create a fighting force strong enough to take him on. That isn’t a fan rationalization, that’s all explained in-story.
The Simurgh admittedly may or may not be rational - we just know very little about her motives and end goals, because we know very little about her in general. But just because something is unexplained, doesn’t necessarily make it irrational. Her actions have been mysterious, but not inconsistent (something along the lines of Dumbledore in HPMOR, at least until we find out more near the end of the story). I’m holding out judgement until Worm2 on this one, but even if we regard her as irrational, she’s an extremely minor part of a very rational story.
I’m not sure we’ll be able to change each other’s minds here, but I do think that if you discount even Worm as not rational enough for the RF genre, then you’re restricting RF to an incredibly small selection of works.
I do generally agree with your last statement though - the rationality of the story should be decided solely on what’s presented in said story, not on the invented explanations of the readers.
u/Jiro_T [-1] (a day later)
Apparently the fireball spell predates even D&D.
That just shows that Fireball first appeared in a D&D predecessor rather than in D&D, which doesn't count unless you're being overly literal. Fireball was not something that existed in fantasy literature and was picked up in D&D later like elves.
Cauldron’s drive seems completely logical to me.
Cauldron's goal makes sense, but the list of subgoals Cauldron does to achieve that goal is mostly arbitrary.
If Cauldron did the opposite of most of the things they did in the story, or if they acted/didn't act when they didn't act/acted in canon, it could still be "explained" as "necessary" to create lots of parahumans and defeat Scion.
Also, Cauldron and the conflict drive are two separate things.
But just because something is unexplained, doesn’t necessarily make it irrational.
If something like that is unexplained, it might not be irrational, but it's certainly non-rational. You're confusing Doylist and Watsonian perspectives here. You can always make a character "rational" from a Watsonian perspective simply by having the character say "I am doing this for a reason". But if it's arbitrary to the reader, it doesn't count towards being rational fiction.
I do generally agree with your last statement though - the rationality of the story should be decided solely on what’s presented in said story, not on the invented explanations of the readers.
That alone includes things like Alexandria getting herself killed, outing Skitter without asking Contessa "path to telling me whether this works or not", etc.
u/tonytwostep [+3] (2 days later)
That just shows that Fireball first appeared in a D&D predecessor rather than in D&D, which doesn't count unless you're being overly literal.
Why does that not count? It wasn’t from D&D, it was from an earlier and completely separate war game - a game that was itself based in the LotR setting. You posited that MoL is a D&D fanfic, but if that’s based on connections like the Fireball spell, I think the fact that the spell existed before D&D, and is commonplace in non-D&D media, is fairly strong evidence to the contrary.
If Cauldron did the opposite of most of the things they did in the story, or if they acted/didn't act when they didn't act/acted in canon, it could still be "explained" as "necessary" to create lots of parahumans and defeat Scion.
I’m looking at r/rational ’s generally agreed upon four criteria of rational fiction here. Cauldron’s actions had plausible reasons behind them, they were driven into conflict by their beliefs, and they attempted to solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources. This isn’t just a matter of the story saying “Cauldron’s actions were necessary”, and the reader taking this as fact. From an outside reader perspective, their actions make plausible, logical sense, even if they’re not the exact actions you yourself would make.
You're confusing Doylist and Watsonian perspectives here.
I’m not. I agreed that the Simurgh as presented is not logical. However, (a) the story is not complete (Worm2 is slated to start around the end of this year), and as the characters actions haven’t yet been shown as irrational, there may yet be motives revealed which clarify things on the reader’s end, and show that her previous actions had plausible reasoning and logic behind them; and (b) the character is very minor, and contrasts with 99% of the other characters, whose actions do have plausible reasons behind them.
That alone includes things like Alexandria getting herself killed, outing Skitter without asking Contessa "path to telling me whether this works or not", etc.
You seem to be confusing “rational characters” with “characters acting like 100% logic-driven robots.” Characters acting emotionally (such as Alexandria deciding to out Skitter in the heat of the moment) means they’re written as human. It doesn’t mean the story’s not rational. HPMOR had plenty of side characters responding in emotional or irrational ways, and Harry himself didn’t always make the best decisions - the point is, those actions had clear, plausible reasons behind them, and were consistent with the character’s personality/beliefs/etc. Not every character needs to always make 100% optimized logical decisions, in order for a story to be rational.
u/Jiro_T [+0] (2 days later)
Why does that not count? It wasn’t from D&D, it was from an earlier and completely separate war game - a game that was itself based in the LotR setting.
It doesn't count because that old game is only noteworthy because it led to D&D, and its ideas only got adopted by a significant number of people through being used in and copied from D&D. Nobody writing a fantasy novel was directly inspired to put Fireball in it by a 1970 wargame ruleset.
they attempted to solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
I disagree that they intelligently applied their knowledge and resources. Many of their applications seem, on their face, stupid, and we only know they are intelligent because we are told that (or because we are told that the Path says that).
Characters acting emotionally... means they’re written as human
Outing Skitter was planned in advance; it wasn't an emotional reaction. Alexandria threatening Skitter's friends was meant to get Skitter to react emotionally, but it was (mis)calculated planning on the part of Alexandria. And Alexandria actually dying from Skitter's attack doesn't make sense even as an emotional reaction.
u/tonytwostep [+2] (2 days later)
Fireball
The point here is that Fireball is not a clear indicator of MoL as a D&D fanfic. I don’t think you’ve provided any evidence to show that MoL is a fanfic, so let’s just move on from this, unless you want to get back that point.
Many of their applications seem, on their face, stupid, and we only know they are intelligent because we are told that
Specific examples? Without knowing exactly what you’re referring to, it seems we just generally disagree on this based on subjective perceptions, in which case there’s not much more to say. Note that they made their decisions based on the information they as characters had available, not on the information you as a reader have available.
Alexandria threatening Skitter's friends was meant to get Skitter to react emotionally, but it was (mis)calculated planning on the part of Alexandria.
Again, just because a plan is miscalculated, doesn’t mean it’s not within the realms of RF. Characters are allowed to make mistakes or decisions that are not completely optimized. HPMOR’s Harry makes multiple mistakes or miscalculated decisions (I only keep using HPMOR as an example because its a work widely agreed upon by the community to be RF). The important distinguishing factor is that the decisions had plausible reasons behind them and were consistent with the character’s thought processes.
They can also apply their knowledge/resources intelligently without necessarily applying them in a 100% optimized fashion. Just because Alexandria didn't take every possible precaution when constructing her Skitter-threatening plan, doesn't mean she was holding the idiotball.
And Alexandria actually dying from Skitter's attack doesn't make sense
Why not? Alexandria being vulnerable to choking to death is consistent with the rules of the Worm-verse. What specifically about her dying breaks one of the RF criteria?
u/Jiro_T [+1] (2 days later)
The point here is that Fireball is not a clear indicator of MoL as a D&D fanfic.
Fireball was an example, and I replied to it as an example. Mother of Learning contains lots of things from D&D, not just fireballs.
Specific examples?
Letting Shatterbird and Siberian go? The reasoning given was that it would drive people to the Protectorate, which seems very weak.
Characters are allowed to make mistakes or decisions that are not completely optimized.
According to word of god, Alexandria was trying to force Skitter into Cauldron. Apparently, people in Cauldron get to force others into Cauldron as side projects without consulting other Cauldron members or asking Contessa (since nobody continued the plan after Alexandria died, and Alexandria never asked Contessa if the plan would succeed). That's far beyond "not completely optimized".
Furthermore, the whole thing is Bond villain levels of evil on Alexandria's part.
Alexandria being vulnerable to choking to death is consistent with the rules of the Worm-verse.
The fact that Alexandria didn't go find a blowtorch and inhale (or just some gas fumes and an open fire) is not consistent with much of anything. Alexandria could also have easily travelled out of Skitter's range (bugs work autonomously after Skitter is knocked out != bugs work autonomously anywhere in the world).
Also, Alexandria's mental processes are offloaded to her shard, which prevents mental influences from affecting her, and should also allow her to remain clearheaded right until she actually goes unconscious.
u/tonytwostep [+2] (2 days later)
Fireball was an example, and I replied to it as an example.
Ok, but you’ve failed to provide any arguments to the effect that just because MoL contains spells that also exist within D&D, that makes it a D&D fanfic. By that logic, should we consider any story that uses Tolkienesque elves/dwarves/orcs, to be LotR fanfic?
The reasoning given was that it would drive people to the Protectorate, which seems very weak.
Why does that “seem very weak”? The more the public perceives they are in danger, the more likely they are to run into the protective arms of the government (or other powerful “protective” forces) - that’s some classic 1984 logic. And what better way to create the perception of danger, than to release a few criminals that are dangerous, but nowhere near on the scale of some of the bigger threats?
It would be like the US government secretly releasing some dangerous criminals from a specific foreign nation into the streets of the US, in order to increase public support for a war with that nation. Is it the best approach? Maybe, maybe not. Is the reasoning at least plausible, is it consistent with the organization’s beliefs/values, and is it an intelligent application of resources (even if it’s not, in your mind, the most intelligent application)? Yes.
I think that last point is really where our entire disagreement boils down to. Based on what you’ve posited, I think we’re in agreement that Worm hits criteria 1 (characters do things for plausible reasons), 2 (factions are driven into conflict based on their beliefs and values), and 4 (the world has consistent rules).
It seems like your argument with why Worm isn’t RF, boils down to your opinion that the work doesn’t hit criteria #3 - more specifically, that the characters’ application of knowledge/resources isn’t intelligent.
On that point, I’m not sure I can convince you. IMO, RF characters (particularly non-protagonists) can solve problems through intelligent application of resources/knowledge, without being the most intelligent characters. Not every character in HPMOR is Harry or Quirrell, and even they make suboptimal decisions.
As for Alexandria:
Her mental processes might have been offloaded to her shard, but just because those thought processes were unaffected by outside suggestion, there’s nothing in the text to say they weren’t affected by her own emotions. Alexandria had almost never been in a situation where she was in actual mortal danger, so it seems perfectly plausible to me that she would panic when choking to death. And that’s not a fan theory, it’s simple human nature. The fan theory would be assuming she’s not subject to normal human emotional distress, because there’s no textual support for that.
“Just suck on a blowtorch” doesn’t seem like a great solution. Alexandria was inside a secure and high-tech government facility, surrounded by a fairly ruined city (this is post-Leviathan, post-S9, and post-Echidna). There’s nothing to suggest that she would know where to, or be able to, find a blowtorch in the short amount of time she had.
There were already live bugs making webs in Alexandria's lungs; traveling out of Skitter’s range wouldn’t make a difference. The fact that Skitter’s power continues to work while she’s unconscious, was only brought up in the text in relation to Tagg (who didn’t have bugs in his lungs, but couldn’t escape Skitter’s range in time), not Alexandria.
u/Jiro_T [+1] (3 days later)
Ok, but you’ve failed to provide any arguments to the effect that just because MoL contains spells that also exist within D&D, that makes it a D&D fanfic. By that logic, should we consider any story that uses Tolkienesque elves/dwarves/orcs, to be LotR fanfic
Mother of Learning uses lots of things that are de-facto specific to D&D. At some point, using lots of Tolkinesque things would make something a LOTR fanfic, although there may be less kind terms used than "fanfic". Also, LOTR is a story and D&D is not, so one would normally expect a LOTR fanfic to include story elements from LOTR, while this is not required for a D&D fanfic.
, I think we’re in agreement that Worm hits criteria 1 (characters do things for plausible reasons), 2 (factions are driven into conflict based on their beliefs and values), and 4 (the world has consistent rules).
But if you also allow suboptimal use of resources, that's an extraordinarily weak definition. Even Star Wars and Harry Potter satisfy it. (Spells and Force abilities are arbitrary, but once they have been shown to exist they work consistently, at least as much as Worm superpowers. And yeah, you could break the system with a Time Turner, but people are just making suboptimal decisions.)
There’s nothing to suggest that she would know where to, or be able to, find a blowtorch in the short amount of time she had.
She can travel halfway around the world in six minutes. She had time to find a blowtorch or a gas station.
There were already live bugs making webs in Alexandria's lungs; traveling out of Skitter’s range wouldn’t make a difference.
It would mean she could flush them out. It would also mean they could not make webs at more than normal bug speed.
u/tonytwostep [+1] (3 days later)
Also, LOTR is a story and D&D is not, so one would normally expect a LOTR fanfic to include story elements from LOTR, while this is not required for a D&D fanfic
2YE is a clear D&D fanfic. It specifically takes place in a D&D world - it uses and relies on not just the spells and items, but also the underlying rules and systems of D&D.
MoL does not have an underlying D&D system. Most elements of MoL are not present in or related to D&D. And most of the MoL spells that are in D&D, are not specific to D&D.
But if you also allow suboptimal use of resources, that's an extraordinarily weak definition.
If you require a work to have the most optimal use of resources by all characters, major or minor in order to be consider rational fiction, then I can’t think of any story that actually fits in the genre.
Even Star Wars and Harry Potter satisfy it.
No, they don’t. Both works are rife with character choices based on implausible or nonexistent reasons (for example, about 100% of the character choices in SW ep1). Both works have some characters driven primarily by the fact that they’re “good” or “evil”. And the world rules are not at all consistent - force powers and spells vary wildly (in both ability and power) across the series’ spans. Note that this doesn’t make them bad stories, it just excludes them as ratfiction.
But most relevant to this conversation, characters in HP and SW don’t often solve problems through intelligent application of resources; they mostly solve problems by stumbling into the right place at the right time, or by believing in themselves or thinking happy thoughts (ex: Harry’s patronus in book 3).
It’s also a question of degrees. Do 100% of the characters in Worm solve problems in the 100% most optimal way, 100% of the time? No, but then neither do characters in HPMoR or Metropolitan Man. Do most of the characters in Worm solve problems in intelligent ways, most of the time? Definitely.
I don’t know that there’s much more to discuss here - you clearly are holding firm on your opinions, I don’t think any arguments I could provide will change your mind. But considering the r/rational community widely considers Worm as ratfic, I feel justified referring to it as such in my original post.
u/Jiro_T [+1] (4 days later)
Most elements of MoL are not present in or related to D&D.
That's true in a trivial sense. The character wears shoes, shoes are not original to D&D. However, a lot of the fantasy elements are from D&D. (Whether it's "most" depends on how you count, of course.)
It’s also a question of degrees. Do 100% of the characters in Worm solve problems in the 100% most optimal way, 100% of the time? No, but then neither do characters in HPMoR or Metropolitan Man.
Any fandom has fans who say "the characters in this fandom are solving problems in intelligent, although suboptimal, ways", and can give a plausible-sounding argument for that. Allowing very suboptimal solutions makes the criterion very subjective.
Also, the Patronus was established as depending on thoughts, so using happy thoughts still counts as rational. It's not as if he was told to make it work by reading a formula and he made it work using happy thoughts instead.
force powers and spells vary wildly (in both ability and power) across the series’ spans
I could say the same thing about Worm powers. (You could argue any specific example, but a Star Wars or Harry Potter fan could argue any specific example from those fandoms too.)
But considering the r/rational community widely considers Worm as ratfic,
I suspect that r/rational considers Worm to be ratfic mostly because 1) Taylor munchkins her power (a rational element, but not the whole of Worm), and 2) Worm appeals to r/rational readers in other ways, and because of the halo effect they then see it as rational.
u/tonytwostep [+1] (4 days later)
(Whether it's "most" depends on how you count, of course.)
I count major/foundational story elements - of which there are almost none. The magic academy setting is unrelated to D&D. The idea of a looping copy of reality is unrelated to D&D. The magic system is not the D&D magic system, even if it uses some spells that are also in D&D. The characters, locations, and overall story are not from D&D. Some of the creatures are in D&D, but others (like the spiders, probably the most important nonhuman species) are original. You would need an incredibly broad and vague definition of fanfic to apply that label to MoL.
Allowing very suboptimal solutions makes the criterion very subjective.
First, that criteria is already somewhat subjective, as it depends on the interpreter's idea of "intelligent application." Second, I'm not allowing for very suboptimal solutions, I'm allowing for slight and occasional suboptimal solutions. Again, I would challenge you to find any work (particularly a long-form one) in which no characters make suboptimal decisions.
You could argue any specific example, but a Star Wars or Harry Potter fan could argue any specific example from those fandoms too.)
Well, you didn't address two of my main points (multiple decisions that clearly didn't have plausible reasons behind them, and the existence of "good" and "evil" factions), so those series already wouldn't be considered rational regardless. As for the power systems, Worm powers are very specifically described and quantified (Taylor can control bugs at this specific range in these specific ways, with clearly defined limitations). In SW, Jedi fight in classic knight style with minimal force power usage in the orig trig, yet in the prequels fly around like acrobats and throw around the force like it's going out of style. R2D2 somehow loses his memories and his many tech tricks (like flying) between 3&4. And there's no in-universe explanation given for any of these inconsistencies. I'm not sure how you can seriously categorize consistencies of the power systems of HP or SW (soft-magic systems) with that of Worm (a hard-magic system).
u/Jiro_T [+1] (4 days later)
I count major/foundational story elements - of which there are almost none.
D&D is a rules system. It doesn't have story elements (although some D&D-based settings do), so a D&D based fic inherently uses non-D&D story elements. That doesn't disqualify it from being a D&D fic.
In SW, Jedi fight in classic knight style with minimal force power usage in the orig trig, yet in the prequels
Worm doesn't have prequels, so it doesn't have this problem.
If a fandom contains many separate works written years apart, some by different people, there will be more inconsistencies. A reasonable definition of a rational work should consider this when determining what level of inconsistency disqualifies a work from being rational.
multiple decisions that clearly didn't have plausible reasons behind them
I'm pretty sure you can find Star Wars fans who can go on in detail about how 90% of those really are very plausible. And the remaining ones just disqualify it from being 100% rational, which nothing is anyway.
the existence of "good" and "evil" factions
Despite terms such as "dark lord", Vader and Voldemort have motivations for doing things other than "I'm evil and I like to do evil".
u/tonytwostep [+1] (4 days later)
D&D is a rules system
And unlike 2YE, MoL doesn't use D&D rules. Thus, as it lacks what you consider D&D's defining feature, MoL simply can't be a D&D fanfic.
I'm pretty sure you can find Star Wars fans who can go on in detail about how 90% of those really are very plausible.
Based purely on information from the original work? Not likely. And "I'm pretty sure you can find fans to explain how some of those are plausible" is not exactly a compelling counterargument in general.
Despite terms such as "dark lord", Vader and Voldemort have motivations for doing things other than "I'm evil and I like to do evil".
Not the characters I'm thinking of. As presented in the films, the Emperor has no real motivations other than to grow the power of Evil (aka the dark side). And even if you accept Voldemort as nuanced, plenty of his Death Eaters, like Bellatrix, are clearly just straightforwardly Evil.
u/Jiro_T [+1] (4 days later)
And unlike 2YE, MoL doesn't use D&D rules.
"Is a rules system" doesn't literally mean "contains only rules". It doesn't contain story elements, but it does contain other things than rules, and those are common in MoL.
And "I'm pretty sure you can find fans to explain how some of those are plausible" is not exactly a compelling counterargument in general.
It points out how "is plausible" is pretty subjective once you make allowances for things like "isn't optimal".
the Emperor has no real motivations other than to grow the power of Evil
The enemies in Star Wars and Harry Potter are not in general motivated by a desire to do evil. Finding specific characters who are doesn't change this for the same reason that finding specific characters who are insane doesn't.
I'm also skeptical of equating "liking power" and "evil for evil's sake", unless you want to disqualify Worm because of, say, Heartbreaker, or even Scion (who could be considered either insane or evil by human standards).
u/tonytwostep [+1] (4 days later)
MoL
I don't think there's much point continuing on this one. We clearly have two different definitions of fanfiction: I posit that a fanfic includes key elements from a specific source material, whereas you seem to be arguing that fiction becomes fanfiction when it includes an unspecified amount of any elements (major or minor) from another work. Since we can't find common ground on the definition of the label, there's no point in debating whether that label applies to MoL.
SW and HP
At this point, you seem to be arguing that SW and HP do fit r/rational 's criteria for RF, so I'm not sure what your actual point is. Are you suggesting the criteria are wrong and/or subjective and/or meaningless? If that's the case, again, no point in continuing to debate whether Worm is RF, if we don't agree on a fundamental level what RF is.
u/Jiro_T [+1] (4 days later)
At this point, you seem to be arguing that SW and HP do fit r/rational 's criteria for RF, so I'm not sure what your actual point is.
They and Worm are both rational if you interpret the definition loosely. If you interpret the definition tightly enough to exclude them, Worm would be excluded too. And I favor the tight definition.
u/tonytwostep [+1] (6 days later)
I think there's a line between accepting Worm as rational, and including SW/HP/etc in the genre.
Also, with your "tight" interpretation, even most of the genre's defining works, like HPMOR, would no longer count as rational (as they include characters that clearly act suboptimally, for example).