scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/7dxv4q.md

## I am... Not a fan of Worm and A Practical Guide to Evil, I'd appreciate feedback as to why.

* Author: u/Slinkinator *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7dxv4q/i_am_not_a_fan_of_worm_and_a_practical_guide_to/
* Score: 29

* Created: 2017-11-19T02:59:21

### Post:

Both of these receive a fairly large amount of praise from people who love the same fics I do, and I just don't find them rational, nor compelling.  Has anyone else read the first 40 or so updates of either of these and been left with a bitter taste? Why?

Alternately, what do you like about them? They're better than a lot of books in the shop, but to me don't seem to compare to the truly exceptional fics out there.

EDIT: I created this mainly in the hope that I'd encounter some analyses that would change my mind, not because I want to dislike these, or have great faith in my sometimes poorly worded objections. If I could dig these that would be a ton of writing to enjoy.

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+103]  (an hour later)
> 
> Worm isn't really intended to be rational. The characters/protagonist are smart about some things, like power use and immediate problem solving, but not about other things like morality or introspection. Taylor is a very flawed person, and that's very much intended. I don't think anyone on this sub looks at her ruminations on the morality of what she's doing and goes "Yes, that's smart, that's the type of thinking everyone should have". It's a popular book on this sub because the world has fairly consistent rules, because it deconstructs or examines aspects of superhero fiction in a way that little else does, and because people win by thinking through things instead of via Deus ex Machina or because their powers are naturally stronger than others'.
> 
> Characters applying values differently to other people than to themselves is a recurring theme, and it's pretty realistic in that way. From a rationalist perspective, it's more of an examination of the biases people have and why they have them than how people can reject and overcome those biases.

>> **u/Action_Bronzong** [+45]  (16 hours later)
>> 
>> Worm's definitely in the category of novels that become a vastly more enjoyable once you realize the author is in on it.
>> 
>> A lot of Taylor's scenes take on deeper nuance and meaning once you realize that she is not always right or even rational, and that this is a deliberate choice made by the author.
>> 
>> I don't particularly think it matters whether Worm is "rational fiction" or not, because it is amazing and thematically rich fiction that explores humanity in ways that a lot of my favorite rational authors would not be able to.
>> 
>> Edit: /u/slinkinator if you're still having trouble, consider the [We've Got Worm](https://www.reddit.com/r/Parahumans/comments/5yfs9d/weve_got_worm_podcast_episode_1_arc_1_gestation/?st=ja74s1v5&sh=73ec3102) podcast, it does a *great* job of recontextualizing a lot of interactions in the story and explaining in a really direct what this says about the characters, themes, etc of the work. Worm is an incredibly rich narrative work that goes out of its way to not present itself as such, and I think reading it only on the surface level is missing out.

>> **u/derefr** [+25]  (18 hours later)
>> 
>> /indicates the sidebar
>> 
>> There is a difference between rational fiction and rationalist fiction. Worm is, I think, considered to be something like the former, but nothing like the latter.
>> 
>> Specifically, Worm is very satisfying to people who like their stories to be... "closed-world automatons"? It's the quality that Tragedies have, and good Mysteries have: that the characters and the setting are *consistent* in ways that let you predict a lot of what is going to happen. The characters might be irrational, but they're irrational in precise, predictable ways that let you ask yourself "what conclusion would a perfectly rational agent—but for [this known set of flaws]—draw in this situation" and end up coming up with the right answer as to what's going to happen.

>>> **u/Takashoru** [+5]  (7 days later)
>>> 
>>> THANK you.  Worm is almost certainly considered rational fiction, and almost certainly not considered rationalist fiction.

> **u/entropizer** [+47]  (50 minutes later)
> 
> I don't like A Practical Guide to Evil.
> 
> I like Worm's emphasis on... I'm not sure how to put it. Logistics? Mechanics? Worm talks about heroism in a practical way. A lot of thought goes into equipment, power utilization, power function, etc. It's not a how-to book, but it's closer to a how-to book than the average novel about people with powers. People use powers for mundane utility, or in conjunction with ordinary tools, or for creative applications, in a way that feels very real.
> 
> There's also a feeling of empowerment with reading Worm, because of this mechanical focus. Almost every problem can be solved, with enough advance preparation and cleverness and willingness to run away, and when problems are solved it does not feel artificial because the details are done so well. Threats escalate over time to force character growth in capabilities, but the difficulty of pulling off solutions always increases relative to the level of escalation.

>> **u/Geminii27** [+35]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> Yup. Worm feels less like standard superhero fiction and more like Reality Ensues - people who practise things get better at them, hard work pays off, sometimes luck goes the wrong way, and there's less of a mindset - at least with Taylor - that powers are something which must only be used when in costume, or that fights must adhere to Queensbury Rules, or that people are either super-boy-scout Heroes or cackling mustache-twiddling Villains, and never the twain shall meet. It feels a bit more like the Whateley Academy universe, where smart minor supervillains work under the radar, there *are* supers who have been both villain and hero at times, and one of the central original story concepts is that heroes can and do often have deep secrets.
>> 
>> Worm's capes are flawed. They're *people* - they have their own individual mindsets and ways of going about things, and sometimes those blur or straddle the lines between Hero and Villain. Particularly when there are Endbringer fights, which force everyone with powers to work (and often die) together. That tends to break down the artificial "us vs them" barriers, and introduce more of a "human vs Unknowable God-Thing" distinction which is always lurking the background, corroding the standard tropes.

>>> **u/chthonicSceptre** [+6]  *Highly Unlikely* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, Worm didn't have this feel for me. Just for instance, there is actually a huge emphasis on the Queensbury rules: after being told that capes never use guns because of potential escalation, there are literally only two instances in the story where capes use guns in a plot-relevant manner. I think there's a supervillain who uses a sniper rifle who has one appearance. While the characters who are powerful enough that guns are pointless get a pass (as does Miss Militia) I can't see any reason the main characters never get them. Not after their city is turned into a flooded war zone, not after they're invaded by marauding serial killers, etc.
>>> 
>>> Even non capes do dumb things, somehow. When the Undersides rob a bank, why don't the police have snipers on every roof around the bank... like at all? I'm pretty sure the robbery was long enough for that to go down. Stuff like that. And any explanation that has the words "Contessa" or "Shard" in it misses the point, because a) those are the idiot ball personified and it's unsatisfying because it's a cop out, and b) we don't know about those until the end, so the reader is left scratching their head for a million plus words.

>>>> **u/Mowtom_** [+23]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> It's the Endbringers.  If heroes do things like set sniper rifles on villains who aren't killing people a la the Slaughterhouse Nine, the villains stop being willing to show up at the Endbringer fights.  If you look at how Endbringers get defeated, sometimes it is just Eidolon stalls until Scion shows up, but other times you have people like Lung who carry the day, and they wouldn't do that if not for the "unwritten rules" that you don't sniper rifle the average villain.

>> **u/Slinkinator** [+6]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> I guess my big issue with work is the inter character interaction then.  I don't remember the challenges and solutions building very well, but I'm down to accept that I might just not appreciate it.  What really gets me down is the idiotic and not particularly consistent social strength of the characters.  They seem to hold certain values close to heart, but only until they talk to someone else, or in the case of the main character until she's has a few minutes to think, where on she decides that she should roll back any character development that would lead her to being a badass.
>> 
>> I guess my issue with aPGtE is a little bit of both. Weakly represented intercharacter relations, in addition to weak problems and weak problem solving, with a extra large dose of Deus ex machina.

>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+0]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Honestly, the characters in Worm are not impressive (coming from a guy writing FanFiction for the damn thing). Most of them are fairly lackluster and unoriginal, with only Jack Slash having any real depth. A fellow by the name of notes wrote a much more character-driven FanFiction by the name of Cenotaph. In the event you think that is what was holding you back, I recommend checking it out.

>>>> **u/Revlar** [+21]  (13 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Characters get a wholly undeserved bad rap in the Worm fandom. Taylor is phenomenal if you pay attention to the writing. Theo is a fantastic contrast to her, later in the serial when he gets the focus. Armsmaster's development is easily some of the best Wildbow's ever written. The interactions between the characters past the halfway point are incredible. Defiant and Saint, Taylor and Bitch. Worm fanfiction only suffers because it's forced to retread the start of the story, when those interactions weren't fully developed.

>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+3]  (13 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that you added a qualifier to your statement: past the halfway mark. Before that, it's not that the chatachters are god-awful unreadable garbage: it's that they're really not anything that great. And to get to the point where they're actually good, you need to read through more than *700,000* words, which is the length of seven novels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And honestly? Taylor isn't that great, though I think this is primarily a matter of opinion as opposed to technique. I personally found her emotions to be muted and flat throughout the series, which is not a small flaw, and not one limited to Taylor (you see this in most interludes as well, though the epilogues are better). On the other hand, lots of people did enjoy Taylor, probably because she's one of (if not the most) sympathetic super-power since Spiderman.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess what I'm getting at is that the time it takes to get to the really good stuff in Worm is, in fact, a reasonable criticism to level at it. That and this work is basically the definition of YMMV, due to choices made by the creator that lead to many 'matter of opinion' cases.

>>>>>> **u/Anderkent** [+19]  (15 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >I personally found her emotions to be muted and flat throughout the series, which is not a small flaw, and not one limited to Taylor (you see this in most interludes as well, though the epilogues are better).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, she's basically compartmentalization incarnate; it seems very fitting that the emotions she's trying not to notice are not front and centre?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> YMMV, but I think I really enjoyed catching the small things that betray Taylor's actual emotional state and worries, rather than what she *says* those are.

>>>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+1]  (16 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Again, this is a matter of opinion. Yes, you can say it's compartmentalized, but it could also be the author not being great at writing emotion (which is hard). I think it's the latter in the early arcs of Worm, you don't, and we're just going to have to disagree.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you enjoyed finding these things, great! You've got a better eye than I do. On the other hand, Taylor felt a little lifeless to me, and that may be a problem in me rather than the work. I don't know, I'm not a good enough writer to get the truth yet.

>>>>>>>> **u/Action_Bronzong** [+18]  (21 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >you can say it's compartmentalized, but it could also be the author not being great at writing emotion 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Man, I really don't know what to tell you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Wildbow [says](https://www.reddit.com/r/Parahumans/comments/63m2cd/weve_got_worm_podcast_readthrough_episode_5_hive/dfvtew2/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Parahumans) it was intentional:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I do feel you guys are 90% right when it comes to your take on what was intentional or not, and what fell into place with some attention to themes and some consistency on other fronts
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >[...]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >It's validating. I've found myself doing little success kid fistpumps when you guys dropped the word compartmentalization a few times and when you drew some parallels.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Reading through this thread though, I get the feeling you aren't picking up on a lot of less explicit characterization in Worm, which would explain why you felt the characterization wasn't *there*.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't think Taylor's compartmentalization and rationalization is something that can be missed if you're dissecting the work at any level of depth. It's a very explicit part of who she is.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> She puts people into boxes. She takes bad thoughts and feelings, locks them away, throws away the key, and forces herself to not think about them. This is in stark contrast to other viewpoint characters, who don't do this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This isn't minor detail stuff. You cannot understand this character without being aware of this. Taylor's attempt to segregate her feelings into boxes is the driving flaw behind most of her actions in the early novel, and a point of reflection and personal growth in the later half.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm going to show you some examples of how Wildbow expertly does characterization, using two separate chapters as examples.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [[15.10](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/colony-15-10/)]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> At this point in the story, Taylor's rationalized a lot of morally questionable things in her pursuit of rescuing Dinah.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is the chapter where the neat little boxes Taylor's been building up finally fall down. Notice the disparity between Taylor's thoughts and involuntary actions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I passed the invisible boundary between the neatly manicured lawn of the mayor’s expansive backyard to the tall grass at the glade’s edge. My hands were shaking and my breathing was heavy.  I hadn’t done anything more strenuous in the past few minutes than talking to the mayor and walking at a good pace, ***but my body was reacting like I’d just sprinted halfway across the mayor’s property.***
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> She can't continue ignoring this. She physically has to face what she's done.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Powerful imagery.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I put a hand on a tree as I walked, as if it could steady me and keep me from falling.  ***I wasn’t in any danger of falling that I was aware of,*** but it was reassuring nonetheless.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Taylor's barely standing upright, but in her head she's still trying to keep her feelings separate from her thoughts to ignore the reality of what she's done.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >Damn.  How big was his property?  And he could still afford to hire someone to cut his grass?  Eat a nice dinner on a huge wooden table, complete with courses?  Blithely ignoring what was going on in the rest of the city with his superhero son and superheroine date?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Taylor reflexively tries to judge or hate the Christners in a weak attempt to justify what she's done. With that having failed...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >No, try as I might, I couldn’t bring myself to get angry.  Couldn’t blame him for what I’d done.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ...the walls come down. This is a pretty big moment of character growth for Taylor.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Just weeks before, she wouldn't have been capable of doing this. It's only after ignoring increasingly horrific actions that Taylor's coping mechanism breaks down.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I couldn’t afford to dwell.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> However, people don't change in an instant. Taylor finds new reasons to ignore Triumph.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Taylor says she *can't afford to take time* to think about this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Let's look at what Wildbow does immediately after.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I directed her to me with my bugs, drawing arrows in the air.  *A minute or two passed before she caught up.*
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So in the two minutes Taylor spent standing there, waiting alone, she has avoided thinking about Rory once.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Worm is explicitly first person. When a character thinks about something or notices a thing, it's supposed to be *that character* doing it. When they don't narrate something that we would ordinarily expect them to narrate, the same rule applies. Worm uses this as a literary technique often, informing personality traits via what things a character does or does not pick up on.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is deliberate, indirect, and interesting characterization.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Do you think the emotion of the scene is being mishandled?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From later in the chapter:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >It was times like this that I felt less normal, less human. It was dark, the foliage overhead dense, branches blocked my way and the ground was riddled with roots, stones and uneven footing. It barely mattered. My bugs flowed ahead of me to check surfaces, clinging to branches and carpeting the ground. I passed through the trees as though I’d spent my life among them, memorizing where everything was. I extended my foot just a bit further to accommodate the slope ahead of me, ducked a branch with wickedly pointed tips and found a handhold on another branch to help myself hop over a spot where water had pooled.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Okay. Taylor's going pretty in depth with her description of the local flora.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Kinda weird, yeah?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >I liked running.  For months, I’d used running as a way to forget about whatever was plaguing me.  Before, it had been the bullying.  Then it had been the pressures of dealing with the Undersiders, my undercover ruse.  Separating from my dad.  Dinah.  The fallout from the Endbringer attack.  Coil.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Running? Taylor, what on Earth does running have to do with-
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ah. I think I see where this is going.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >The times I hadn’t run, I’d felt like I was losing my mind.  Did correlation equal causation, there?  Or was it just that the moments I was unable to run were the same moments I was under the most stress?  When the Slaughterhouse Nine had been in town, when I’d been living in the shelters after Leviathan hit the city, before I rejoined the Undersiders?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> She's thinking about literally anything except Rory Christner and what she did to him.
>>>>>>>>  [Compartmentalization.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >Either way, it was good to break free of my thoughts on Triumph and what I’d done to him. I could focus on breathing, on putting each foot exactly where it needed to be, keeping my balance and letting my subconscious guide me through the woods.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And then, Wildbow comes out and more explicitly states that Taylor is avoiding her problems and putting them in a box. Since another one of Taylor's character traits is a lack of self-awareness, she chooses to phrase this in possibly the most flowery and positive way you could phrase such a thing.

>>>>>>>>> **u/Action_Bronzong** [+14]  (21 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> **(Part 2)**
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The following contains **HEAVY SPOILERS** up to Arc 25.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [[24.4]](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/crushed-24-4/)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >“Hey Shitcrumb!”  Regent hollered, backing away from cover.  “Easy-”
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >Behemoth dropped the flame attack.  I could see Yàngban members raising forcefields as he reached out, casting a bolt of lightning in Regent’s direction.  The forcefields did nothing, not even softening the blow in any measurable way.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >Regent was snuffed out, dead.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >A small sound escaped my mouth.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >***But there was no time to react.***  Reeling, grieving, it would cost us.  He’d done what he did for a reason.  The antigrav on the flight pack kicked in, I waited until it started to drag me, then let it go.  It skidded across the gap, across the road, to Imp.  She caught it, and I controlled the motion of it to drag her away.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Justified in the moment or not, you can't ignore that Taylor is once again trying to box up and throw away feelings that are hurting her.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is how Taylor systematically deals with issues. She doesn't. When something bothers her, it no longer gets mentioned in her narration.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Let's see how long she can keep that up for, though. Much later in the chapter:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >Silence, stillness.  The buzz of my power at the periphery of my consciousness was a fraction of what it might otherwise be, limited to the bugs that crawled in the recesses of my costume.  There was only the press of bodies, two dogs and all of the rest of us in an area smaller than my jail cell.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >I tried to speak, and emotion caught my voice.  ***It threw me, as if it didn’t match how I felt, didn’t match the composure I felt like I had.***
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Taylor still tries to ignore the reality of how this is making her feel. It's safely tucked away in its compartment so clearly it can't be affecting her emotionally.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is a *really* good characterization beat, imo.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >*Think, think.*
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >“Sorry about your pal,” Tecton said.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >I shook my head.  A denial?  He was important to me, but… what, then?  Was I wanting to focus on the situation?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In a previous example, I showed Taylor using flowery language when talking about her awful coping mechanisms to make them sound better, something that I think is a very believable and human touch.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Here, she's rebranding her coping mechanism to do the same thing. Clearly, she's just doing what she can to focus on the mission, and certainly not trying to put off dealing with something traumatic because that sort of thing has been consistently hard for her.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is *wonderfully* indirect characterization.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't really  get how someone can go through Worm with any semblance of literary analysis and come away thinking the characterization is "lackluster," or how these very deliberate character beats can be misinterpreted by someone as the author "not being great at writing emotion."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dude, I get it. [Sometimes the curtains are just fucking blue.](https://i.imgur.com/QWGrU.jpg) But I think you can go too far in the opposite direction, and end up wilfully ignoring a lot of things that are pretty clearly intentional.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> **Edit:** Worm is an incredibly heavy novel. If you're still having trouble interpreting it, I recommend checking out the [**We've Got Worm**](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/weve-got-worm/id1232043483?mt=2) podcast. They do a good job of making the themes and nuances of Worm understandable to people who aren't used to looking at a novel that way.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+1]  (22 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I mean, I can be wrong. This is something I think I made clear in other comments, and I do not appear to have read it close enough to pick up on this.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Again though, what does this have to do with the OP? If you have to preface a story with “look for the more subtle emotions,” are you writing a good story? Maybe I’m not a good enough reader to *get it*, and that’s a criticism of me, a reader. But level that lens at the work too. What is the barrier to enjoyment in Worm?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Again, I read and enjoyed Worm. But I can’t seem to reread it, and my attempts to do so are thwarted by Taylor’s monologues and the feeling of a glass screen between the rest of the characters and me. Maybe that’s what WarnerBrothers was going for. Maybe it’s a problem I have. But I don’t feel like Taylor is human sometimes.

>>>>>>>> **u/talks2deadpeeps** [+9]  *The Culture* (17 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When you read a story and assume that things are the way they are because the author is bad at writing, that just means you never suspended your disbelief. You should always look for in-universe reasons first, and only decide the author is a bad one if there is no consistent in-universe reasoning.

>>>>>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+4]  (19 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I would counter that creating an in-universe reason to cover a mistake is a thing authors do. Again though, the biggest thing that screams "mistake" rather than "misreading" to me is that Taylor shows more emotion as the series goes on. I think this is because SavageBreau is getting better at writing, rather than Taylor developing a greater emotional range.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> All of this is slightly tangent to the OP: why would someone dislike/be unable to get into Worm? In the context of the OP, I'm taking the stance that the main character is a little flat at the beginning, to which you are saying is a personal failing. I would ask you if you know of any other explanation/flaws in Worm that would turn a reader off.

>>>>>> **u/Revlar** [+4]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was giving a few examples, not talking about the entirety of the work. Taylor's emotions and attitudes are muted by design, but on a reread you'll notice she conveys them much more strongly through her actions rather than through her inner monologue.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think as someone writing fanfiction you've probably spent more time reading that than you spent reading the original, and other people's interpretations of the characters have colored your impressions. Before rereading, I was in the same place.

>>>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+2]  (16 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've tried rereading Worm, but knowing how the action plays out really takes away a lot of the suspense. Given that the story uses the constant escalation so much, it removed a lot of the "what's going to happen next?" feeling I read it for in the first place. I've never made it farther than the Levi arc after I finished it the first time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Fair point on the coloring of my interpretation from fanfiction. I would offer that re-reading inner monologues is not my preferred entertainment.

>>>> **u/Teal_Thanatos** [+28]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Your joking right? Jack's hardly nuanced. he's a whiny bitch who broke under pressure and had the rest of his achievements half handed to him by his powers.

>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+11]  (13 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> By way of explanation, Jack is shallow. Astoundingly so. That’s why he built the Nine, to show the world that he’s the big bad, that he matters. Whenever someone calls him out on this, he freaks out and tries to kill them. In this way he is a consistent and interesting character.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Everyone be else is kinda eh in Worm. Again, I liked it, but as a character study it was nothing spectacular.

>>>> **u/Action_Bronzong** [+12]  (22 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > only Jack Slash having any real depth
>>>> 
>>>> His entire meta-narrative arc is the author demonstrating, layer by layer, that he lacks any real depth, cunning, or originality.
>>>> 
>>>> Jack Slash was very deliberately written as a shallow character trying to pass himself off as deep.

>>>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+10]  (22 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thing is, that's depth. He's a whiny son of a bitch playing charismatic slasher villain, and succeeding. Until he doesn't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By dissecting such a stereotypical villain, WarBoar actually forces depth upon him, showing the how and why such a person could exist. Much in the same way Skitter uses breadth of power to make depth (turning a Master power into Tinker/Shaker/Thinker ratings), Jack Slash uses breadth of horror to create the illusion depth (so many different types of death from the Nine make people unsure as to what he's going to do next, and conceal the fact that he's a murderhobo). Meanwhile, the rest of the cast of Worm have clear, defined goals that inform their every action. Jack's the odd man out, until he isn't and thus you *feel* as if his character developed, even though he's the most childish person in the entire serial.
>>>>> 
>>>>> TL;DR: Jack's depth revealed as shallowness is actually more entertaining to go through than watching realistic people do realistic things. It's much more fun to watch Superman turn into Clark Kent than watch realistic people kill each other.

> **u/Ardvarkeating101** [+33]  *Father of Learning* (14 minutes later)
> 
> Never read worm but practical guide is a fun deconstruction of the Lord of the Rings fantasy genre mixed with strong characters and a sense of scale of abilities that isn't often done well.  
> 
> Catherine looks and acts like someone who was pushed well beyond what she could bare and kept herself together by convincing herself it was for the greater good.  Problem is, she actually **is** willing to do what that entails, and as time goes on her solutions are more and more pragmatic in the HPMOR!Dark Side version of pragmatism IE "I don't have time to redeem every motherfucker I come across, they either die or fall in line because I don't can't spare them any more thought."
> 
> This leads to her to becoming very good at her chosen field IE murdering those who disagree and getting the survivors to fall in line, hell, just look the Gallowborne.  Unfortunately for her (and some of her agency) she has put no points into diplomacy, she honestly has neither the time nor the inclination.  This leads to her getting screwed over by Heiress or Malicia or the First Prince or whoever in the long run because she just ignored politics as a thing-I-don't-have-time-for.  This can leave a bad taste in your mouth, especially as the amazingness of Malicia and Cordelia Hasenbach becomes evident.
> 
> In the end though, I find the whole thing rather satisfying, especially the outside-view chapters where everyone is all "how the fuck did she do all this and how the fuck is she still alive?  WHAT DO YOU FUCKING MEAN SHE MUGGED A FUCKING ANGEL?" etc etc.
> 
> Of course, I like deconstruction in general and the characters were just what put it above the rest for me.

>> **u/Paimon** [+38]  (56 minutes later)
>> 
>> I love the snappy dialog. Rational or not, it's FUN.

>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+27]  *Pokémon Professor* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> Yep. The "fun" factor of the story reminds me strongly of The Dresden Files, and is a large part of why I enjoy both so much.

>>>> **u/ben_oni** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sorry, I didn't find *The Dresden Files* to be fun at all. I read a whole bunch of them, and... I enjoyed them well enough, but not enough to pick them back up. Yeah, he's constantly snarking more and more as things get worse and worse, but it wasn't *fun* to read.

>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+4]  *Pokémon Professor* (3 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eh, it's not *consistently* fun, the same way Practical Guide to Evil isn't, and in fact there's a bit less of the light hearted scenes, but Harry and his friends have a lot of amusing banter too, and Harry's flair for being irreverent to Big Bads and nerdy references is often a strong theme in the story, to me.

>>>> **u/Paimon** [+2]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I liked the Dresden Files for a long time, but the scenes with Molly were getting too creepy for me. "Look at this child who's super sexy, but not yet because she's still young. But she's a bad girl who's got a thing for teacher, who's just trying *so* hard not to give in to temptation."

>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+4]  (5 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eugh, that sounds gross. I tried to get into the series, but I was getting misogynistic vibes from the very beginning and it took me right out of it. That's a thing that keeps happening, then?

>>>>>> **u/Takashoru** [+2]  (7 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First couple books seemed worse, misogyny-wise, IMO.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Molly is a polarizing character, but not a particularly poorly written one.

>>>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1]  (12 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For the record, I did not get that vibe at all. Yes, Molly is described as very attractive once she's grown up. Yes, she's got a huge crush on Dresden. No, Dresden is never remotely tempted. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As an example, there's one scene where she makes a play for him by walking into his living room in a towel after taking a shower and then drops it. His response is to dump a pitcher of ice water on her head and say "That will never happen."  Yes, when she drops her towel his internal monologue recognizes that she's attractive and is willing. No, he's not seriously moved by it.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As to misogyny...I don't really see it. Karrin Murphy is a badass, very honorable, and smart. Molly is a complex character but very positively shown and I wouldn't describe her as a "bad girl" unless the definition of "bad girl" is simply "woman who is in command of her own sexuality". Dresden's girlfriends are both badasses, mentally and physically, who have serious agency and don't need to be rescued more often than any other character. There are villainous women, but there are villainous men, too. Offhand, I can't think of a single Distress Damsel or Overbearing Shrew or Subservient Housewife in the series. I see that others are saying this was mostly an issue in the first couple books; it's been a long time since I started the series, so maybe I'm not thinking of something from the start of the series. It's definitely not an ongoing thing.

>>>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+2]  (12 days later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I should clarify that it was more specifically Dresden himself who was giving me the vibes in the book I read. For example, he argued that the killer must be a woman because "women are better at hating than men", and he also had this benevolent sexism thing going on in his internal narration. I'm all for flawed protagonists but there was a kind of smugness in his attitudes about women that made me uncomfortable.

>>>>>> **u/Paimon** [+1]  (13 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I didn't get the vibes from the beginning, so if you did, then it gets worse.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's sad too, the world building was really good, as is the premise.

>> **u/Slinkinator** [+12]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> So, I appreciate a lot of what you're saying, but it was really her POV mugging an angel that killed it for me. The author seemed to take too much joy in it, the scene was pretty bloated, and I couldn't reconcile all the previous descriptions of insanely powerful angels with her interaction with it.  It seemed a little bit too lucky to me, and because every character is a Hero or a Villain with tons of potential and an empathetic backstory, it's harder to accept that the protagonist wins just because.

>>> **u/Ardvarkeating101** [+26]  *Father of Learning* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> > So, I appreciate a lot of what you're saying, but it was really her POV mugging an angel that killed it for me. The author seemed to take too much joy in it, the scene was pretty bloated, and I couldn't reconcile all the previous descriptions of insanely powerful angels with her interaction with it. It seemed a little bit too lucky to me, and because every character is a Hero or a Villain with tons of potential and an empathetic backstory, it's harder to accept that the protagonist wins just because.
>>> 
>>> This was kind of set up a lot along the way.  She has admitted a lot of times that she is not a good person, and is okay with that.  She is willing to become a monster for the sake of the people of Callow.  She didn't quite *get* that until she was faced with the screaming voices of the heavens inside her **demanding** she regret what she did.  Then she finds that she really doesn't, even if she should.  She is a monster, heart and soul, and has done everything for a greater purpose which she does not regret.  Angels are bound by stories, they are not..... creative.  They do a thing and that's it.  Contrition finds your sins and makes you contrite with them, but they can't really change you if they're not actually sins (at least to you), which is, admittedly, rather unique so far.  Evil acknowledges they commit sins, that they are, in fact, Evil.  Catherine proclaims herself a monster for a greater purpose, and that her sins and all the blood she has shed is worth it for the greater *good*.
>>> 
>>> The problem that's going to bite her now is the fact that, okay, she's a monster and she's been doing what's pragmatic not what's ethical for a while now.  Has she accomplished anything?  Has it been worth it?  Saying it's for a greater cause is a great thing to say, but does it actually end up being for a greater cause?  She now faces the Choir of Judgement, and is going to be faced with the fact that she hasn't really improved the quality of life of the people of Callow.  She's going to face judgement incarnate with the blood of thousands on her hand and they're going to ask her "Was it worth it?"

>>> **u/Takashoru** [+4]  (7 days later)
>>> 
>>> Dude, it was a joyous scene.  It was a plan coming together.  It was pulling one over on the Lawful Good mind-rapers.   I'm not really surprised that you wouldn't have enjoyed it, if you didn't enjoy what came up to it.  Why would you expect to enjoy the celebration if you didn't like what was being celebrated?
>>> 
>>> They were forced to interact with her in the manner they did because she managed to set herself up as the narrative protagonist for that short period of time.  She won because she was able to use a narrative structure to make herself 'the protagonist who gets resurrected'.  Her later ploy with the Winter Court makes this entire concept much more explicit, but this isn't a thing you can just do with a whim and a prayer.  You've got to play the part, fit the role.
>>> 
>>> Fundamentally, in PGTE, the more primeval a character is (barring demons), the more they must bend to narrative causality.  There is nothing at all suspect about angels (second only to gods in narrative causal binding) being forced to act in certain ways in keeping with a narrative for no other reason than the narrative the character asserts demands it.
>>> 
>>> If that doesn't seem appealing to you, then yeah, I don't know what would make you enjoy the series.

> **u/Schuano** [+27]  (4 hours later)
> 
> With the Practical guide to evil, I'm starting to sour on it. 
> 
> Mainly because I found the Calamities compelling in the way that they hacked the story conventions and worked around them.  
> 
> With them,  it always seemed very careful and discussed and tactical.  They seemed like focused adults who very well knew that they were pushing against the forces of all creation.   
> 
> As the story has gone on...  Cat has become more powerful, but also much more cavalier.   The Calamities had to overcome other people's plot armor which they did through careful study and planning..  In book 3, Cat seems to have her own plot armor.  
> 
> I remember in one of the recent ones,  Cat purposefully surprised Masego during the middle of a supposedly critical combat.  That took me totally out of the story as she wasn't treating it as "we are one mistake away from total catastrophe." instead it seemed like "I trust my plot armor to protect me from pulling stupid stuff in a critical battle."
> 
> It took me out of it a lot.

>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+13]  (6 hours later)
>> 
>> The story of the rise of the Calamities sometimes does seem more interesting than Catherine's. Then again, I don't know if Malicia would be as compelling if we could see into her head *all* the time.

>> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+12]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> I'm waiting for that to bite cat in the ass. Because it seems like it's a lesson that is starting to rust away.
>> 
>> She knew not to do this thing when she started, She's losing sight of it.

>> **u/AurelianoTampa** [+8]  (20 hours later)
>> 
>> > I remember in one of the recent ones, Cat purposefully surprised Masego during the middle of a supposedly critical combat. That took me totally out of the story as she wasn't treating it as "we are one mistake away from total catastrophe." instead it seemed like "I trust my plot armor to protect me from pulling stupid stuff in a critical battle."
>> 
>> I'm not souring on PGtE yet, but yeah, this bugged the heck out of me too. That, and when Masego and Cat had the option to catch Archer as she was falling in a recent battle. Masego's ready to do so and Cat's like "Nah, let her break her fall on that house, it'll be funny."
>> 
>> Archer's one of the strongest forces in Cat's army - why in the world would she risk letting her get seriously injured!? It was a terrible tactical decision that was seemingly done just for humorous byplay - not at all how a commander would handle a valuable asset, or a leader should support a teammate.

>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+5]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> It *is* something a cliche villain would do, though. Oh shit, the story tropes got her!

>>>> **u/AurelianoTampa** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> > Oh shit, the story tropes got her!
>>>> 
>>>> That's exactly what was worrying me about it! Recently she's been relying on story tropes to play the system - which works OK in Arcadia, where all the fae are literally bound by tropes - but not so much in Creation, where the tropes always end with the villains losing. Granted she's fighting fae now, and another villain later... but if she keeps relying on narrative to see her through, she's screwed when she goes up against heroes again.
>>>> 
>>>> Hoping that as of today's chapter, Winter's influence on her will be significantly lessened or ended, and she'll stop making these kinds of choices in future conflicts.

>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+7]  (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe Black will call her on it. On top of generally being cognizant of this sort of thing, he also has the very recent and bitter experience of being on the receiving end of a weaponized story.

>>> **u/Takashoru** [+2]  (7 days later)
>>> 
>>> Named are notoriously hard to kill, and Archer is pretty darn skilled.  I don't think there was any real danger in her being seriously wounded, and Masego is pretty good at healing, even if so.
>>> 
>>> I think it wasn't a great move, but it wasn't totally ridiculous either.

> **u/CouteauBleu** [+17]  *We are the Empire.* (2 hours later)
> 
> I have... mixed feelings on Worm and Practical Guide. You know what? Practical Guide review time!
> 
> ---
> 
> I think *A Practical Guide to Evil* is a mix of three genres: young adult anti-hero epic, political intrigue, and meta-story telling. I tolerate the first, love the second and hate the third.
> 
> Catherine is basically the archetypal female young adult character. She's grown up in a difficult environment, seen suffering and misery, learned to fend for herself, she's the Chosen One but she's building her own destiny. She's baaaasically Katniss Everdeen with more agency, and a rationalist spin ("most heroes try to do X, X doesn't work, I'm going to try Y instead"). So if you don't find this type of character compelling... yeah, ain't gonna work out.
> 
> Personally, I love the worldbuilding and the political elements. Stuff like the idea that Amadeus made the Imperial Legion more popular by having it patrol areas controlled by corrupt nobles and corrupt police forces, or the idea that Callow and Praes are doomed to fight because Praes has a constant overpopulation problem and needs to invade Callow to either cull its population or import food (which was also a theme in OotS).
> 
> On the other hand, if you forget the big picture plan of "unifying Callow and Praes through common enemies" for a moment, the day to day reality is pretty grim. Catherine is working for an Empire that has consistently been an oppressive Tyranny for centuries, and just happens to currently be getting more progressive. Her plan to unify the region entails a lot dying, suffering, and civil-war-ing. The story doesn't pull punches on the fact that every battle has casualties, and every manoeuver requires sending soldiers to their deaths. Maybe you don't like the frequent reminders that a lot of people are dying in the depicted conflicts.
> 
> The meta story-telling is when a character goes "I'm a villain and he's a hero, that means he's going to win because stories!". I don't have much to say on that except I don't like it. It's another thing that drawn from *Order of the Stick* (Black is basically a cross between OotS' Tarquin and Darth Vader), and... I dunno, it's not very interesting to me. I'm not really a fan of 4th-wall breaking, unless it's used sparingly in comedies, so the whole idea of "We know we're in a story, so let's use strategies that will work because we're in a story" doesn't really appeal to me. I prefer the parts about logistics and politics.
> 
> Also, I know that "Evil" is in the title, but I don't really like the parts where they start to discuss Good and Evil. Despite what Star Wars would like you to believe, there's no ideology of Evil. There are weird Satanist cults, and philosophies of rationalizing why it's okay to be selfish, and you can always use some variation of individualism and "The only virtue is being strong because Darwin / because good and bad are subjective / whatever", but essentially, everyone either believe themselves to be "Good", feel like they're not "Good" but would like to be, or don't care and think the idea of "Good" is pointless.
> 
> So while I understand that the setting has a whole divine eternal war between order and individualism and how they basically map to Good and Evil in human societies, I still find it weird when the protagonist goes "We are the villains!" even though she has a pretty strong sense of ethics. Same thing for Worm, I have trouble taking someone seriously when he's saying "This person is a villain!" Who does that? If you want to use labels, use "criminal" or "murderer" or "scumbag", but having cops talk about "villains" is just silly.
> 
> ---
> 
> So that's my take. If you maybe have more specific feedback on Practical Guide and Worm, maybe we could help you figure out what you like better?

>> **u/cretan_bull** [+19]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> > The meta story-telling is when a character goes "I'm a villain and he's a hero, that means he's going to win because stories!". I don't have much to say on that except I don't like it. It's another thing that drawn from Order of the Stick (Black is basically a cross between OotS' Tarquin and Darth Vader), and... I dunno, it's not very interesting to me. I'm not really a fan of 4th-wall breaking, unless it's used sparingly in comedies, so the whole idea of "We know we're in a story, so let's use strategies that will work because we're in a story" doesn't really appeal to me.
>> 
>> This isn't fourth-wall breaking. From the perspective of the characters in the story, the fact that the universe partly runs on tropes is as much a law of reality as physics. It's the author's perogative to set up the rules of the universe however they want, so long as they are consistent.
>> 
>> Like Philip K. Dick said, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." It doesn't matter how bullshit the rules may seem to the reader, they're the reality the characters have to deal with. If the characters said "that's really stupid" and tried to ignore the tropes, their actions would likely be highly sub-optimal. Remember, rationality is systemized winning.
>> 
>> In some ways these sorts of situations where the rules are unclear (and bullshit) can be more interesting than those where the rules can be systematically pinned down through rigorous experimentation and used to formulate complex solutions to problems. Making decisions from very limited information is a *really* hard problem. As an analogy, contrast a hard science (e.g physics) with a soft science (e.g economics). Physicists may look down on economists, but in many ways the economists have the harder problem: there aren't any nice, neat mathematical models that almost perfectly descibe everything down to a ridiculous degree of precision. The best economists may be able to produce is a bunch of ad-hoc models that rely on dubious assumptions and frequently fail catastrophically, but that doesn't make their work any less valid or important.
>> 
>> My point is that being able to draw useful conclusions from limited information when the rules are messy and complex is an important skill, and more challenging to the characters than a world with "sensible" rules. Characters may not be able to come up with as complex or intelligent-looking solutions, but the solutions they manage to produce are that much harder earned. This can be less satisfying for readers, though (i.e. Sanderson's First Rule of Magic), and can enable the author to "cheat" by arbitrarily introducing solutions or challenges in a manner utterly opaque to the reader.

>>> **u/biomatter** [+16]  (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I can still sympathize with /u/CouteauBleu's point, though. Justify it all you want in universe, it still can just look like 4th wall shenanigans to the reader. (Not that this bothers me too much, I can see their PoV is all.)

>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+9]  *We are the Empire.* (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yeah. I'd say I like the "the narrative rules are confused and unclear but we have to deal with them best as we can or we'll lose" parts, but I don't like that there are explicit narrative rules to begin with.
>>> 
>>> Either way, it doesn't come up too often to really bother me.

>>>> **u/Paimon** [+6]  (13 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I actually enjoy that aspect of the story a lot. In a world where the villains fall into the traps outlined by the Evil Overlord List again and again, anyone with half a brain would see this, and take steps to prevent it from happening to them.

>> **u/biomatter** [+11]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> I just wanna say, as a casual reader of PGtE - that was some really interesting feedback. It helps me flesh out why I enjoy it, so thanks for that.

>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+4]  *We are the Empire.* (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> You're welcome!

>> **u/Fresh_C** [+8]  (4 hours later)
>> 
>> I agree with pretty much every point you made. The meta story elements are probably the weakest bit of the story because they don't feel predictable (like the conclusion of book 2). Maybe if the rules of manipulating the meta-fiction setting were explained in more depth it would help it feel more like sufficiently understood magic. But as is, only really the rule of threes seems to be fully outlined and even that feels arbitrary concerning what is considered a win, loss, or draw.
>> 
>> I still like the story despite this, but that's probably my biggest complaint with it.
>> 
>> Also, I don't think it's fair to compare Worm using the term "villain" to Practical Guide having people call themselves Evil. In Worm it's explained that the system of Heroes and Villains isn't something that exactly sprung up naturally, but is rather a calculated thing to control public perception. And a lot of the Villains wouldn't actually call themselves villains either, like Kaiser and other people who are pushing an ideology.

>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+8]  (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I don't know, I feel like the meta-fiction rules (and ways of exploiting them) have been fairly consistent, especially since the fae showed up. I can think of three times off the top of my head that someone has used an archetypal story to their advantage (spoilers follow for anyone who isn't caught up): [](#s "Catherine using the "mysterious child with a claim to a noble title" story to bullshit her way into a fae title; Thief using the "theft of fire from the gods" story to get away with stealing the sun; the Bard painstakingly setting up a "hero vs monster" conflict to guarantee Sabah's defeat against a less experienced foe.")
>>> 
>>> My interpretation: Following an archetypal story is a path of least resistance. If you set up the right conditions for a story, the universe will facilitate that story playing out in a predictable manner. Therefore, it's useful to arrange a story whose archetypal outcome benefits you.

>>>> **u/Fresh_C** [+1]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I stopped reading your comment because I haven't started reading book 3 yet so I don't want spoilers.
>>>> 
>>>> My comment is more focused on the first 2 books. I probably should have made that clear.

>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3]  (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, yeah, that explains it. There's definitely way more meta-fiction stuff in the parts you haven't gotten to. I went ahead and put those parts behind a spoiler tag so you don't accidentally see them in the future.

>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+4]  *We are the Empire.* (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > isn't something that exactly sprung up naturally, but is rather a calculated thing to control public perception
>>> 
>>> Well that's another can of w... um, that's also a problem.

>>>> **u/talks2deadpeeps** [+2]  *The Culture* (17 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> How so?

>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+7]  *We are the Empire.* (21 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Short version: there's a lot of debates and frustration online about some aspects of Worm's worldbuilding that explain why capes work the way they do. Stuff like "The shards make the capes more likely to conflict", or "capes who just use their power for money are rare because the system is set up to create Heroes and Villains", or "Tony Stark isn't curing cancer because when he tries SIMURGH IN YOUR FACE", etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Without getting too much into details, it can be seen as clever worldbuilding justifying superhero tropes, or as annoying rules depriving characters of their agency.

>>>>>> **u/Oaden** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Another popular one is approaches/plans not being tried by cauldron cause "contessa said it would fail"

> **u/ViceroyChobani** [+32]  *Reserve Pigeon Army* (20 minutes later)
> 
> Do you have any clear thoughts as to what you find objectionable, unenjoyable, or irrational about them?  Far easier to begin a conversation based on that than to list all the varying things that cause others to enjoy them. 
> 
> If not, may I suggest you put thought towards clarifying it for yourself?  I realize that this may be part of the reason you posted, but it’s difficult for others to predict all the nuances that combine to make up your thoughts. We could then provide input and opinions regarding those thoughts. 
> 
> Mostly I think we would discuss the parts you find to be irrational. I can definitely understand if the style of these fics is not to your tastes. 
> 
> EDIT: didn’t read the other posts before responding to this comment thread. Productive conversation has ensued, OP’s point has been clarified. I consider my question answered, and point I made herein no longer relevant.

>> **u/ben_oni** [+9]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> > Do you have any clear thoughts as to what you find objectionable, unenjoyable, or irrational about them? Far easier to begin a conversation based on that than to list all the varying things that cause others to enjoy them.
>> 
>> This sounds as though you are asking for points you can rebut. I find it often leads to an argument of the form "No, that aspect actually *is* enjoyable, for the following reasons..." or "That's part of the appeal." Neither of these sorts of arguments does anything to help me enjoy a work. I find it hard to imagine you aren't winding up the OP just to be condescending when he finally does reply.

>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+30]  (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> To be fair, OP essentially asked to be convinced to enjoy these works. I don't see how that can be accomplished without knowing why they don't enjoy them now.

>>> **u/ViceroyChobani** [+8]  *Reserve Pigeon Army* (7 hours later)
>>> 
>>> *Not relevant to larger thread discussion*
>>> 
>>> I had a response here that I deleted after I read all the other responses. 
>>> 
>>> With regards to your point - I can see how it could seem like I was trying to set up a straw man for me to knock down. Totally get it. Not what I was aiming for, though.  I was trying to clarify what areas were those he found unenjoyable, so I could talk about the reasons I either did or did not enjoy those specific points, instead of writing all my thoughts on the works in general. 
>>> 
>>> Given that others in this thread managed to clarify that point through discussion of what they thought, I concede that my question was not the best way to go about answering OP’s question. 
>>> Especially since, upon reflection and reading of other comments, OP didn’t seem sure of his own reasons and was looking for us to help clarify his own thoughts.

>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+3]  *We are the Empire.* (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I mean, the OP *is* pretty vague, but... yeah. The thing you're describing is super annoying.

> **u/GriffinJ** [+11]  (13 minutes later)
> 
> What do you consider to be truly exceptional works then?

>> **u/Slinkinator** [+6]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> Hpmor got me into this stuff, saga of soul, Mother of learning, Pokemon origin of species, worth the candle, the metropolitan man, branches on the tree of time, MLP friendship is optimal, to list a few.

>>> **u/Fresh_C** [+31]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I think maybe you might not be a fan of constant escalation. You're probably more interested in the munchkining and exploration of systems than you are the drama of overcoming ever-increasing obstacles with the odds stacked against you.
>>> 
>>> All the stories you listed seem to be more about about smart characters exploring their worlds and trying to find optimal ways to deal with their problems. Whereas Worm and APGTE are more heavily drama/action focused with worldbuilding/optimizing as a means to drive the drama instead of as the main focus.
>>> 
>>> So that would be my guess as to why you don't find them appealing.

>>>> **u/ansible** [+3]  *The Culture* (12 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > I think maybe you might not be a fan of constant escalation. 
>>>> 
>>>> I know I'm not.
>>>> 
>>>> Worm was bad in that regard, but there were enough down times that I made it through. Pact (also by Wildbow's) was much worse in that regard, and it got to the point where I stopped and couldn't continue. Reading it was just too stressful!
>>>> 
>>>> I've stopped (maybe permanently, not sure) with PGtE for the same reason.

>>> **u/I_Hump_Rainbowz** [+1]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Can you give me the rundown of pokemon. i agree with a lot of what you said in this and i have never heard of metropoitan man and branches on the tree of time. 
>>> 
>>> I cant get myself to even think about MLP though.

>>>> **u/None** [+9]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> [Origin of Species](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/9794740/1/Pokemon-The-Origin-of-Species) is basically just Pokemon but rational. All about realistic Pokemon as creatures with special qualities, and the science behind why they would work the way they do, and why the world works the way it does.
>>>> 
>>>> [Metropolitan Man](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-Man) is a Superman fanfic that is mostly written from the perspective of Lex Luthor; not only is it rational, but it's also (IMO) one of the best Superman stories ever written, and that includes the comics and movies. [Branches on the Tree of Time](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/9658524/1/Branches-on-the-Tree-of-Time) is a Terminator fanfic that fully utilizes the time travel aspect of the original setting, and is similarly rational and fantastic. I mention both of these in the same paragraph because they were both written by u/alexanderwales, and are basically classics of the r/rational genre.
>>>> 
>>>> [MLP: Friendship is Optimal](https://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/1/friendship-is-optimal/prologue-equestria-online) is actually very good. It features one of the best representations of artificial intelligence in any rational fiction, and actually focuses somewhat on the "MLP is childish" idea. You don't have to be a fan of MLP to enjoy it (and, in fact, I'm not), and if anything the concepts shown in it are more interesting from the perspective of someone who isn't a fan.
>>>> 
>>>> Edit: added links

>>>>> **u/thrawnca** [+8]  *Carbon-based biped* (22 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > You don't have to be a fan of MLP to enjoy it
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that "What if someone *doesn't want to be a pony*?" is an important plot point.

>>>>> **u/ansible** [+3]  *The Culture* (12 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a great summary. I'm not even slightly inclined to be a MLP:FIM fan, but Friendship is Optimal was awesome and quite approachable.

>>>> **u/entropizer** [+1]  (16 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I think Metropolitan Man is one of my top five fanfictions. Definitely top ten. Highly recommend it.

>>> **u/ben_oni** [-4]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Okay, some of those are pretty terrible. "Branches on the Tree of Time"? Seriously? Not a very good story; I consider the time spent reading it to have been a waste. Good thing it was short.
>>> 
>>> "Mother of Learning" is certainly fun, but while I find it enjoyable and would recommend it to people with similar tastes, I would never hold it up as "exceptional". Like, I wouldn't nominate it for an award. Think of it this way: pick any of the Marvel movies. I like them, and would recommend them to fans in the target demographic, but they're not exactly Oscar material, and none of them are destined to be classics. In other words, not *exceptional*.

>>>> **u/Fresh_C** [+18]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I don't really like it when people give downvotes without explaining why, because it doesn't really accomplish anything. So even though I personally didn't downvote you, I feel compelled to take a guess at why other people did.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the reason you're being downvoted is because your comment doesn't really help OP in any way. You basically just said "The things you like aren't good and your opinion is wrong". 
>>>> 
>>>> What OP was looking for was an explaination for why he might not like Worm and APGTE that much or an explaination of why other people do like it. And you saying "Your taste is bad" is sort of an answer I suppose, but not a satisfying or helpful one since it's completely subjective.

>>>>> **u/ben_oni** [-4]  (14 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > What OP was looking for was an explaination for why he might not like Worm and APGTE that much
>>>>> 
>>>>> And you had already answered this point. I have nothing specific to add to your excellent hypothesis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > "Your taste is bad"
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's at least useful to consider, isn't it? However, I would rather OP take it as "Your tastes are probably not mature."

>>>>>> **u/Fresh_C** [+12]  (15 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >It's at least useful to consider, isn't it? However, I would rather OP take it as "Your tastes are probably not mature."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My problem with this line of thinking is that it tries to make opinions into objective truths. What you consider "mature tastes" is probably not what many other people consider "mature tastes" and it's not really fair to say that one person is right or wrong.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The closest you can get to defining an objective opinion would be to say that "the most popular opinions are the right ones and all other ones are the wrong ones", but I don't think anyone really believes that when taken to its logical conclusions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also even if it was an objective fact that OPs tastes were not mature, I don't think knowing that helps OP. They can't force themselves to like things they don't like. So at best you've only made them aware that their tastes are atypical (something that they likely already knew given the fact that they made this thread in the first place). At worse, you make them feel bad about themselves for not having good/mature tastes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing for you to voice your opinion and say "I don't think some of the things you listed are classics **in my opinion** and here's why...". That could be an interesting conversation starter. But the way you stated your opinion makes it sound as if you believe your opinion is some universal truth, instead of an opinion. And you never really elaborated on why you don't think those stories are worthy of being classics or list stories that you consider classics, so it just feels like you're trashing OPs opinion without explaining how your opinion differs.

>>>>>>> **u/ben_oni** [+1]  (21 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I really don't want to address the "opinion vs. fact" thing ever again, but well, now we're doing it. It was tired and old in grade school, and it's even more worn now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There are "opinions" and there are "beliefs". The two often get conflated. As you are doing so now. As as statement of fact: it is possible to take a work and say whether it is "good" or "bad". There may not be some universal metric, but any such claim can be judged by various metrics. Take something like... I dunno, *[He-Man and the Masters of the Universe](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126158/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)*. Fact: it isn't *good*. Opinion: I *enjoyed* it when I was young.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When you say mature tastes *cannot* be differentiated from immature tastes... you're just wrong. Probably because of a lack of experience.

>>>>>>>> **u/Fresh_C** [+6]  (21 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well I guess all I can say is that I disagree with you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't believe something can be inherently good or bad. Especially when we're talking about entertainment value. It's not a fact that He-man isn't good. In fact your definitions are completely backwards. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Fact: I enjoyed He-Man when I was young. Opinion: He-man isn't good" would be the correct way to say this. Your personal enjoyment of something is a fact. Any rating that you give to it is the opinion.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sure you can argue by certain metrics certain things are good or bad, but you first have to define those metrics and not everyone is going to agree on what they should be.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For example someone might say "A game that runs at less than 60 fps is bad", but other people might say "As long as I have fun playing the game it doesn't matter what the frame rate is." The metrics that you're using to judge are just as subjective as your overall opinion of something. So unless you can get everyone in the world to agree to the same metrics as you, any assessment you make based on those metrics are still opinions.

>>>>>> **u/Anderkent** [+7]  (15 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not really. What's the point of even considering 'your taste is bad'? There's hardly a 'good' (desirable) and 'bad' (undesirable) taste, at most there's 'high status' and 'low status' taste. The point of this thread isn't to make OP start liking different things. It's to either point out things he isn't noticing in the books that he might like, or notice how his tastes differ from other peoples so that he can better predict if he'll like something the subreddit likes.

> **u/pizzahotdoglover** [+7]  (3 hours later)
> 
> Brave of you to post that here!
> 
> While I wouldn't say that either story you mentioned is strictly rational fiction, what I personally like about them, Worm especially, is their high level of realism within the established boundaries of the story. For the most part, the characters behave like real people would if they got powers, and to the extent that they don't, there is a satisfying in-universe explanation as to why. This is in contrast to most other super hero and fantasy stories (super hero stories especially) where characters often do things that make little sense from their perspective, just because it's necessary to move the plot along. 
> 
> I would even suggest that the prevalence of this issue in these genres is the source of much of the enthusiasm for the stories you mentioned. People who love these genres but are still bothered by that they often suffer from this issue, are understandably very excited when they discover great stories like Worm or PGtE that avoid this problem.

>> **u/Takashoru** [+3]  (7 days later)
>> 
>> Rational vs rationalist distinction, please.  Both worlds are highly realistic and self-consistent, but lack truly optimizing protagonists, though both stories do have them working in the background.

>>> **u/pizzahotdoglover** [+1]  (7 days later)
>>> 
>>> I agree that neither story is Rational*ist* at all. I said that neither story is *strictly* Rational Fiction. I would say that for a story to be strictly Rational Fiction, it should never or almost never break any of the rules of Rational Fiction. 
>>> 
>>> According to the sidebar definition, I would say that Worm is mostly Rational Fiction, and PGTE is somewhat Rational Fiction.
>>> 
>>> - Nothing happens solely because 'the plot requires it'. If characters do (or don't do) something, there must be a plausible reason.
>>> 
>>> Worm and PGTE follow this rule for the most part.
>>> 
>>> - Any factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil".
>>> 
>>> Again, Worm follows this for the most part (e.g., the S9).
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, in PGTE, being "Good" or "Evil" is an explicit motivation for almost all of the characters and factions, with the Black Knight and the Dread Empress and the MC being the notable exceptions. Since there are good in-story reasons for this, I can see how it could fit within this rule. But still, it's even more overt than LoTR, and I can't think of another story where so many characters base their actions on their identity as Good or Evil, so I wouldn't say that PGTE is strictly Rational.
>>> 
>>> - The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
>>> 
>>> Both fics follow this rule, with very few exceptions (e.g., in Worm, after Regent takes control of Shatterbird, he uses her power to transport their team on top of a door with glass shards embedded in it, because if they just took a car, it might break down. I guess powers influence users to use them, but it would probably still be better just to drive).
>>> 
>>> - The fictional world has consistent rules, and sticks to them.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure exactly how to apply this rule, since in both stories, the reader becomes aware of new rules well into the story, but those rules aren't ever inconsistent with what happened before (e.g., second trigger events).
>>> 
>>> What do you think?

>>>> **u/Takashoru** [+2]  (7 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh hey, do I recognize you from /r/wormfanfic?
>>>> 
>>>> I would challenge the S9 being evil for the sake of evil.  Jack has skewed motivations to leave a mark on the world.  He brainwashes and shard-manipulates members into following his plans, though most of their motivations can be similarly explored, especially when shard-induced behaviors are taken into account.  They are no more inexplicable or unbelievable than real world school shooters, terrorists, and unethical scientists.
>>>> 
>>>> I very much disagree with your rationale for disqualifying PGTE.  Good and Evil are fixtures of the world, and do not (as has been remarked upon many times) strictly correspond to our moral ideas of them.  Good is known for mind-raping cities into perfect utilitarians, and Evil is now creating public schooling and freeing its once-slaves.  It's much more of a Lawful vs Chaotic ideation, as Black and others have discussed (though they may not be the most unbiased sources).  Even if it were more strictly good and evil, the characters still very much are driven by their beliefs and values, perhaps even moreso on the side of Evil than Good, though, this is again a lampshaded concept within the world.  This is like saying Eliezer's *Sword of Good* isn't Rational for the same reason.
>>>> 
>>>> The Regent example is meh.  They're in a war-torn feudalistic city.  Finding cars more reliable than powers is of non-negligible difficulty, and certainly isn't a strong point in your favor, even if it could be argued.  Plus, intimidation has non-zero value, and this is definitely that.
>>>> 
>>>> It is true that the consistent rules in both are revealed in an ongoing fashion, but frankly, there are simply too many to be easily info-dumped near the beginning for our benefit.  The general premises of each were established early on, and in Worm, they come as important spoilers later, and in PGTE, they are not known to the perspective character any more than to us.
>>>> 
>>>> While I will agree that more foreshadowing could be done in either case (Brandon Sanderson comes to mind), it's still well above average, and well above the standard for what gets characterized and labelled as rational fiction on this subreddit and elsewhere on the internet.

>>>>> **u/pizzahotdoglover** [+1]  (7 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Oh hey, do I recognize you from /r/wormfanfic?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hell yes, you do, I can't get enough of Worm, which is why I'm talking about it on the internet on a Saturday night lol.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >Jack has skewed motivations to leave a mark on the world.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even the most cliched villain almost always has some motivations or past trauma that made him "evil." If the bar for being "evil" (as opposed to being driven by a core belief) is that low, then virtually all villains would meet this standard. Sauron had his reasons for doing what he did, and so did the Green Goblin. I still wouldn't classify those aspects of LoTR and Spiderman as "Rational" in the way we use it in this sub. I can't even think of a story where the villain is evil for no reason at all. Even Marvel's Thanos wants to destroy all life because he wants to impress the avatar/goddess of death.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that a better example of a Rational explanation for evil behavior would be the Entities. They are destroying the Earth as part of a science experiment in an attempt to reverse entropy and stop the heat death of the universe, a noble goal for any Rationalist that even HPJEV would approve of. [Side note: what I really love about that aspect of them, is that it takes this idea of utilitarianism and the question of, "what *isn't* justified to avert an existential threat?" to the absolute extreme, because the Entities are just doing what Cauldron is doing, but on a broader scale, just as Cauldron is doing what Taylor is doing, but on a broader scale.]
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do agree with you about the rest of the S9 having a Rational explanation for their evilness, but the Rationality of "An evil character made them" as a motivation, IMO, depends entirely on the Rationality of the evil character's motivations, and here, Jack's aren't particularly Rational.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >They are no more inexplicable or unbelievable than real world school shooters, terrorists, and unethical scientists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hmm.. I thought a while about this because it's a really good point. I think that in a piece of Rational Fiction, a school shooter or a terrorist would be a poor choice for an antagonist. Think of it this way, if Jack were the main antagonist for all of Worm, wouldn't that make it less of a Rational work? Rational Fiction is different from other fiction, in that characters have motivations other than being evil for evil's sake. Just because some people *are* in fact evil for evil's sake doesn't mean that they should feature in a Rational work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And not to get too lawyerly on you, but the language I was addressing says, "Any factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil". Jack is defined by, and driven into conflict by, his value of being evil, which is not meaningfully different from just being evil. I don't know if I would go as far as claiming that characters like Jack or a terrorist have no place in Rational Fiction, but it was an example of a part of Worm that didn't abide by that "rule."
>>>>> 
>>>>> >Good and Evil are fixtures of the world
>>>>> 
>>>>> This point convinced me. I was going to say that they choose to go out of their way to be Good or Evil for the sake of being Good or Evil, but in their world, reality works in such a way that that behavior makes the most sense, since acting Good or Evil beneficial.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I haven't read *Sword of Good*, so I don't know the reference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >The Regent example is meh. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I used that example because it stuck out to me as an example of the author just looking for an excuse to use the new power (of course, as I write this, it occurs to me that Regent would probably also look for such an excuse), rather than the characters just doing what makes the most sense. If their car breaks down, they can make a glass-door-float then. And I'm not sure that a handful of people all trying to balance on a floating door is that intimidating. They could just stride down the street surrounded by a hurricane of glass if they wanted to go that route.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with your remaining points.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >well above the standard for what gets characterized and labelled as rational fiction on this subreddit and elsewhere on the internet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I haven't read a ton of what gets posted here, so I may have been too literal in my application of the definition.

>>>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+2]  (12 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > They are destroying the Earth as part of a science experiment in an attempt to reverse entropy and stop the heat death of the universe,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please tell me if I have this wrong, but my understanding of the Entities' plan is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Find people who are traumatized and psychologically damaged
>>>>>> 2. Put worms in their heads that give them superpowers
>>>>>> 3. Have the worms mind control their hosts into punching each other instead of doing science / improving everyone's quality of life / anything useful
>>>>>> 4. After they've punched each other enough, blow up the planet and take back all the worms
>>>>>> 5. ???
>>>>>> 6. Stop the heat death of the universe. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do I have that right? If so, that is literally the least productive route to the goal that I can imagine. Maybe talking to humans and recruiting them as research partners would be a better plan?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is why I so thoroughly dislike Worm. The entire thing is a series of author fiat diabolus ex machina from the large scale to the small, simply to justify wallowing in grimdark.

>>>>>>> **u/pizzahotdoglover** [+1]  (12 days later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lol that's not how I would phrase it exactly, but you've got the basics. I agree that from our view, doing science might seem more productive than fighting, but keep in mind that these creatures are utterly alien to us because they evolved in totally different circumstances and think in different ways. They're obviously extremely advanced, and it seems likely that most of their advancement was centered around conflict, so that's what they consider to be the best way to get new ideas and technology. They would probably scoff at the idea of doing science to make progress as much as you do at the idea of punching each other. They certainly don't have any reason to be interested in humans improving their quality of life. Humans are like little processors to them. They have enough self-awareness to realize that their minds are probably not capable of finding the solution, but not enough to realize that conflict may not be the most efficient way for all species to maximize innovation. Their logic isn't completely horrible, though, because it is true that war tends to lead to technological advancement, and they're careful to not let anyone get too destructive to the point of interfering with the overall experiment. Not only that, they probably tried lots of different strategies on various planets, and determined that conflict was the optimal path to getting the most useful information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I disagree that the conflict with the entities is diabolous ex machina, and I also think it's more productive to interpret Worm through the proper lens. I think that the purpose of Worm is to take the crazy, irrational, often silly world of superheroes and comic book villains, and come up with the most realistic explanation that could justify all of that existing, and I think it does a great job at that. How would you suggest changing the story to fix the flaws you see in it, without altering the essential aspects of the setting? In other words, if you change the story so that the entities are peaceful and people aren't going around using superpowers to stop crime and fight each other, it's not really a superhero story anymore, and you've totally changed the story to something completely different, and neatly sidestepped the problem of writing a realistic, mostly rational story that incorporates all of the traditional elements of the superhero genre. If you think he failed at writing a rational story in which all these elements can reasonably exist, but you can't think of a better way to accomplish that, then maybe your point should be that the superhero genre is inherently irrational, rather than that the author failed at writing a (mostly) rational story.

> **u/Daneels_Soul** [+10]  (4 hours later)
> 
> I gave up on A Practical Guide to Evil when too many of the conflicts started to feel like they were solved by the enemy being stupid or it not being as difficult as initially depicted rather than by the protagonist being particularly clever about anything.

> **u/royishere** [+8]  (5 hours later)
> 
> I've been feeling this a lot lately, especially in regards to PGtE. I just... don't like it very much. It had promise in the beginning, but now the whole thing just feels like multi-chapter battle after multi-chapter battle, with superficial casualty numbers that become more and more stupidly unrealistic every time. I didn't care about the demon arc and I care even less about the fae arc, so... been a while since I actually gave a shit about anything that was happening in the main story. The snark is more grating and silly than endearing to me, "the woe" is a stupid name, Cat's victories don't seem particularly earned, the overarching plot is very much Worm with a fresh coat of paint, and the aspect system...
> 
> Well, that's gonna require a whole separate paragraph because I hate, hate, HATE the aspect system. What could have been a cool, interesting way for villains with the same name to distinguish and differentiate themselves is... super lame. They've become superattacks *activated by saying the name of the aspect ffs* and that's never something I wanted from the aspect system. When they were first introduced, I thought they'd fit into this whole theme of getting powerful by following the story vs. gaining advantage by subverting it but that's a theme that has been largely wasted.
> 
> (Also I think I was doomed to dislike the story regardless because I've never been a fan of elaborate settings with pages of exposition on each minor principality. But that at least I can see being a strength for others).
> 
> Worm, on the other hand... I liked it. Up until the S9 redux arc. If one of the S9 clones had been a shark-man and Taylor had jumped over it, it would have been strangely fitting. The story got better again once that was finished, but the damage was done. Also, admittedly, my eyes kind of glazed past most of the action scenes past the halfway point. There were too many of them and not enough were plot-important enough to justify their existence. 
> 
> Still, I really did like Worm, for many reasons already articulated in this thread! If I had to pick between reading PGtE for the first time or Worm for a second, I'd go with Worm.

>> **u/tonytwostep** [+2]  (9 hours later)
>> 
>> > (Also I think I was doomed to dislike the story regardless because I've never been a fan of elaborate settings with pages of exposition on each minor principality. But that at least I can see being a strength for others).
>> 
>> Haha, I'm a fan of elaborate settings with pages of detailed exposition, yet I also have grown to dislike PGtE!
>> 
>> It's interesting, because the story overflows with hyper-focused details on how the empire is run, the structures of principalities, etc...yet the whole 4th-wall, genre-following/bending/breaking system upon which the world is built, is *extremely* ill-defined, and so much of the power interaction/development feels pulled from thin air and then rationalized after the fact.
>> 
>> The author gives us an overflow of information for one major part of the story, but very little for another major part, and I think it ends up pushing out both categories of fans.

> **u/HeckDang** [+7]  (an hour later)
> 
> Worm starts out pretty differently to where it goes, if you've only read the early bits then I can understand your position.

> **u/gridpoint** [+8]  (4 hours later)
> 
> Crapsack worlds generally don't appeal to me. The logistics of throwing thousands of people into the meat grinder while having whole societies somehow continue to function is a bit difficult to swallow. We see the people getting wiped out by immense powers but we don't always see the babies being born and grown to sustain the destruction. The glass is often too empty to seem rational.
> 
> However I enjoyed Worm and PGTE. Worm manages the post-endbringer struggle of Brockton Bay with some semblance of balance up to a point. PGTE's good versus evil motif seems less developed what with the artificial famines and mass ritual massacres on the evil side and the good suffering from near constant depredations. 
> 
> I suppose I like these stories because it helps that the protagonists are more ably depicted as damaged (yet functioning) products of their respective worlds. They become what they oppose. That's not conducive to forming an emotional attachment with the reader though. Bad things are expected to happen to the protagonists and I often concede they were deserved or shrug it off cuz shit happens in a crapsack world. I don't always empathize or make myself feel shock for their circumstances.

> **u/Slinkinator** [+9]  (an hour later)
> 
> I have lots of thoughts on why, but I felt like if I put them out here initially it might stymy any feedback.  People talk about Worm's emphasis on practical heroism, practical application of powers, stuff like that.
> 
> But I don't see it. What I see is extended middle school interactions between highly similar characters with cosmetic differences in place of real divergence.  Repeatedly the Undersider members express or come to a resolution to do what needs to be done, but insist on either inefficient or erratic behaviour, justified by the moral compunctions they just foreswore, or by the adolescent and basically uninteresting extended arguments they get into.
> 
> A practical guide to evil seems to suffer from the same thing shadows of the limelight does, recursive narrative dependent worlds that lose sight of character development (here I am referring to both of them running into the same issue, creating world's where power is dependent on being genre savvy, and then having your characters do stuff like debate what will be genre savvy before they act).  Sometimes it introduces new characters that are superficially distinct from the people we've seen so far (I'm thinking of the Tyrant), but it seems like every auxiliary character checks their actions and decptions against what the protagonist can deal with.  Also there's really no evil to speak of, just modes of management with varying levels of effectiveness.
> 
> It's been a month or so since I read either of them, and my once cogent criticisms may have withered, but this is the gist of my issue with these guys.

>> **u/tonytwostep** [+1]  (9 hours later)
>> 
>> I disagree pretty strongly with your characterization of Worm, but I *agree* strongly with your criticisms of PGtE, especially in the more recent arcs. The overuse of this type of narrative device:
>> 
>> > creating world's where power is dependent on being genre savvy, and then having your characters do stuff like debate what will be genre savvy before they act
>> 
>> has really started to bother me, and the story's focus on characters out-meta-ing each other has really taken it in a different direction from the first arc (which, despite some rather unoriginal plot elements, I actually enjoyed a lot).

>>> **u/Ibbot** [+4]  (18 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Any major character in a world like that that doesn’t try to put-meta the others *is stupid*.  Why would they turn their backs on the most reliable way to achieve their goals?

>>>> **u/tonytwostep** [+7]  (19 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> But that's my point. The author chose to create a world in which out-meta-ing each other is the smartest thing to do. But that just leads to an extreme emphasis following/subverting the cycles of stories (which we only learn about piecemeal, after the fact), or following some meta-rules which we are never fully explained.

>>>>> **u/Takashoru** [+1]  (7 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> A very savvy reader could devise most of the stories in advance.  They rarely, if ever, differ from the templates of stories in our own world.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you want to complain about out-meta-ing each other, I can't disagree that it exists, but I don't share your values against it.

> **u/RMcD94** [+4]  (3 hours later)
> 
> I wrote a lot of critical comments at the start of worm, but eventually I left less and less and it's one of my favourites. Maybe like me you just need a longer try but no guarantees.

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+6]  *Time flies like an arrow* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> I had somewhat the opposite reaction to Worm. Notwithstanding the high school bullying scenes, which really dragged, the beginning was my favorite part, and I had more complaints as the story progressed. I still liked it, overall, but don't plan to read it again until it's edited, and I'm really hoping that the things I most disliked get edited away (and Wildbow has already said as much when discussing the edits).

> **u/torac** [+4]  (7 hours later)
> 
> I finally gave up shortly after the Leviathan fight. Now that I have enjoyed a lot of worm fanfiction I might try again. I’ve been on the fence pretty much from the first chapter on, though, and I think many of my complaints are still valid, even after reading spoilers that might explain them in-universe.
> 
> Please note that the following is based on recollections from years ago. It summarizes my impression, nothing more.
> 
> ---
> Every single fight I can remember felt incredibly narratively convenient to me, to the point of being unbelievable. It started with Lung. Taylor managed to narrowly avoid an experienced superhuman melee-fighter a few too many times for me to really be invested in the fight. Even after he grew too much for the pepper spray and bug-bites to really affect him, he just stumbled around. This started my belief that Taylor has plot-armor, which solidified throughout the next few arcs. In turn, this lowered my emotional investment significantly. I semi-fondly recall playing the yackety sax theme in my head while Bakuda and her goons chase the Undersiders with machine-guns and grenade launchers. Not really what imagine wildbow was going for.
> 
> Barely succeeding against impossible odds once is exciting. Doing it routinely is boring.
> 
> ---
> 
> At the same time, Taylors life was designed to be as soul-crushing as possible. So many things happened *just so* in order for her life to suck, that I didn’t even care anymore. After having read some spoilers, I’m convinced Taylor’s life has been a Simurgh plot to get her in the right mindset for killing Scion by thinking depressing thoughts at him. (That’s roughly what happened, right?)
> 
> ---
> The setting was vaguely unbelievable. This is later revealed to have been engineered by Cauldron, but Contessa inducing world-wide learned helplessness in regards to snipers vs. parahumans  does not make a compelling setting. This is mostly a number of miniscule subjective things that vaguely irritated me in the background. The one thing that bothered my had been that mundane humans were completely side-lined when parahumans were involved.
> 
> ---
> 
> For me to enjoy grimdark settings I have to either take the seriously, or laugh at it. I could do neither fully here.
> 
> ---
> 
> Tl;dr: Worm felt like each action had two possible outcomes: 1) Failing as inconveniently as possible; 2) Barely succeeding against all odds.

>> **u/serge_cell** [+3]  (11 hours later)
>> 
>> >Taylor has plot-armor
>> 
>> Taylor have Queen Administrator wich is not much worse. It's a common headcanon that  Queen Administrator is doing far more than just low level bugs managment.

>>> **u/reaper7876** [+5]  (16 hours later)
>>> 
>>> She also has [spoiler](#s "Coil's support, at least for a while, which nulls out some of the timelines where the Undersiders get beaten down early on.").

>>>> **u/torac** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> That was one of the things that kept me going in the beginning. After they find out what the power really is, I just didn’t consider that sufficient to explain what happened.

> **u/nogamepleb** [+3]  (3 hours later)
> 
> I could only read Worm once, because the main appeal of the story is seeing how powers interact. If you’re not into that, the story isn’t actually that special.
> 
> I’m also frosty on a Practical Guide to Evil. This is more because the update time is so long, but more than that the main characters are simply too cavalier for me. It never feels like bad shit will ever stick, which drains tension from it like a *motherfucker*.
> 
> If you’re looking for something else, the Legacy series of FanFiction for Worm is much more character driven, in many ways surpassing the source material. Or you could read The Metropolitan Man for the fifth time.

>> **u/aldonius** [+19]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> > This is more because the update time is so long
>> 
>> Twice a week is a long time between updates?!? What other stuff do you read and how to those creators support themselves?

>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+1]  (13 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Back when I tried reading it I was waiting ~a month between updates. Things may have changed since then.

>>>> **u/aldonius** [+3]  (13 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Fair point; the pace has indeed increased over time.

>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+6]  (6 hours later)
>> 
>> What would you consider an acceptable time between updates? I always thought Practical Guide updated shockingly quickly.

>>> **u/nogamepleb** [+1]  (13 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Maybe I was reading it wrong? I waited a month or so between updates.
>>> 
>>> Mind, this was a while ago, so things may have changed.

>>>> **u/Oaden** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> Around volume 2 it was updating weekly, and recently a patreon goal was made to 2 updates a week, and 1 side character chapter every month
>>>> 
>>>> (chapters seem to have shortened a bit in the conversion form 1 per week to 2 per week though)

> **u/Mbnewman19** [+4]  (11 minutes later)
> 
> "Has anyone else read the first 40 or so updates of either of these and been left with a bitter taste?"
> Nope - they're awesome.

> **u/EthanCC** [+2]  (2 hours later)
> 
> I can't speak for A Practical Guide to Evil, but a big part of Worm is that the protagonist is biased and is not socially healthy. It's considered rational because the world-building is a more realistic look at superhero tropes and how they might come about, things don't happen for no reason, and the characters all make sense as people and do their best to solve problems like an intelligent person. But if you compare it to explicitly rational fiction, there's a big lack of scientific methodology and it doesn't do a good job of teaching rationalism, not to mention how the main character is clearly biased against authority. So you can definitely make a case for it not being rational; something being compelling is more a personal thing, and without knowing more about your tastes we can't really guess why. It also might help to know where you stopped reading, because there *is* a quality drop later that a lot of people stopped at.
> 
> TLDR: Don't look at Worm as a rational fic, I would say that it isn't. It's a constant roller-coaster with no brakes, some people just don't like that.

> **u/bvonl** [+2]  (4 hours later)
> 
> Which online fiction do you recommend, (apart from what you've mentioned in your comments already; i read those)?

> **u/thrawnca** [+2]  *Carbon-based biped* (8 hours later)
> 
> I read a good chunk of Worm, probably over half. It wasn't *bad*, it explored a superhero world with some depth to it. But it didn't wow me, and eventually the grimdark level exceeded my tolerances (specifically, [when](#s " Bonesaw redecorated a room with Brian")).
> 
> It has explorations of interesting concepts. But I don't see what I can learn for my own life [from](#s " puppeting someone's body as a torture method, or getting a child addicted to hard drugs so you have control of her powers, or assaulting a city to blackmail its inhabitants into handing someone over for the mother of all hazing rituals") except "don't do that."
> 
> As a "world of superheroes" story, I prefer Doc Future. It really tries to tackle the question of "Why wouldn't this person use X power to do Y?" and IMO it does a good job.

> **u/muns4colleg** [+2]  (23 hours later)
> 
> Speaking as someone who's a fan of Worm but ranges from to okay with to actively annoyed by Practical Guide I feel that both these stories have a common surface throughline but are highly divergent on a deeper level.
> 
> Both of them work very well as power fantasies. You have moderately clever young protagonists with a ruthless streak getting into fights with people who generally represent some ideology the reader is led to find either ineffectual and distateful and coming out on top because they're harder and smarter. Fights are constructed to feel like they have a layer of mechanics to them that the characters can exploit so they seem smarter and more calculating than they are. These are stories that are very good at getting an audience of disaffected and often geeky young people to root for the protagonist.
> 
> But on the deeper level things diverge. Worm is at it's core a character journey from the perspective of someone who is highly intelligent but weighed down by trauma and a biased perspective. She sees problems as simpler as they really are, and favours simple, violent solutions, but the world fails to bend to her expectations. Things are not that simple, the people she fights are people, and her violence and lone wolf attitude hurt herself as much as her enemies and don't do much good in the end. At the end of the day Worm is self aware of the fact that it's a power fantasy and delivers a story in which acting on the power fantasy only makes thing worse.
> 
> Practical Guide, by contrast, is much simpler and shallower. The authoritarian power fantasy is accepted as a truly effective way of dealing with the world. Catherine is on surface level has just as much depth as Taylor but her conception of the world as a place where might makes right solutions and hard man decisions can fix the world is validated. She solves all her problems with over the top violence and domination and things just kinda... work out for her and she doesn't have to deal with the negative consequences for those decisions. 
> 
> Conflicts are far less ambiguous as well. Catherine always has a clear idea of who her friends and enemies are, people within her monkeysphere are deliberately written to be more likeable and three dimensional than those who are not, her adversaries are often either much worse or much less likeable and unlike Taylor for whom the less savoury aspects of her friends is a source of internal conflict Catherine just accepts them for the most part unless it directly affects her. 
> 
> It also hides it's lack of moral introspection by clothing itself in deconstruction of stock fantasy, which seems impressive to people who see fantasy in terms of tropes and cliches and have more limited reference pools, but falls flat to people who have a deeper, more varied, and more literary understanding of the genre.
> 
> The messy part of it is that on a writing level Practical Guide is the more tightly written and effective story compared to Worm which is very uneven in it's pacing and storytelling. To sum up, I think that Worm is a story that's compelling because it indulges in the power fantasies people crave while at the same time examining them, whereas Practical guide is enjoyable to people because it distills the elements that make Worm appealing and gets rid of the parts that make Worm less comforting to the reader.

>> **u/thrawnca** [+0]  *Carbon-based biped* (23 hours later)
>> 
>> > At the end of the day Worm is self aware of the fact that it's a power fantasy and delivers a story in which acting on the power fantasy only makes thing worse.
>> 
>> I think this is why, regardless of writing quality, I don't enjoy reading it. No matter how well-researched, no matter the careful wordcrafting or the comprehensive treatment of the subject, I wouldn't want to read Count Rugen's definitive treatise on pain.
>> 
>> Your analysis is well done, though.

>> **u/Gustav_Kuriga** [+1]  (4 years later)
>> 
>> Oh boy, does this analysis turn out to be premature...

> **u/None** [+2]  (a day later)
> 
> What does the word "rational" mean to you exactly? What specifically turned you off from them?

> **u/wren42** [+1]  (10 hours later)
> 
> I think both of them resort to "magic" and "fate" to resolve problems, which is likely why they don't really feel rational to me.  The characters don't plan and find smart solutions to problems, they kind of just blunder on driven by the momentum of their role and environment. 
> 
> They also both feature protagonists that have an ethical core but are pushed into being archetypical villains, and this feels a bit forced at times.  Rationality is a lot about morality and effective pursuit of values, and the villain trope sometimes feels forced and in contradiction with their aims.
> 
> I enjoy reading both but have stalled out several times and have yet to finish either for the above reasons

> **u/Sailor_Vulcan** [+1]  *Champion of Justice and Reason* (11 hours later)
> 
> I tried to get into worm. I really did. I kinda liked it but it made me too tense. All that sneaking around and wondering if/when the protagonist might get caught. For the same reason I couldn't get myself to keep watching Merlin, despite it seeming like a pretty decent show.
> Makes me kinda sad though because I'm always running out of ratfic to read and there's probably some good stuff in the worm fandom...

>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3]  (18 hours later)
>> 
>> You didn't miss much by not watching Merlin. It's extremely cheesy and relies heavily on characters doing stupid things for no reason to drive the plot. Also, Merlin is a horrible person.

> **u/Revlar** [+1]  (13 hours later)
> 
> I appreciate Worm a lot more than A Practical Guide To Evil, mostly because Taylor's moral struggle has depth, while Catherine's is shallow, in being just a villain protagonist.

> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> Huh. I've seen a lot of people talking about how Taylor escalated and her decisions weren't healthy. And maybe it's the rose colored glasses of nostalgia (it's been over two years since I read Worm in full) but I don't really understand why this is such a popular opinion.
> 
> As far as I can tell, Taylor made the sort of ruthless decisions she made because she had to. I don't recall her ever using excessive force for no good reason and escalating when a calmer, more peaceful solution would have worked.
> 
> However, it has been some time, and I've seen enough people talk about how she's mentally unstable (which she definitely is) and prone to escalation that I'm just curious; anyone want to give me a quick concise summary on why so many people regard Taylor's choices as irrational/too escalation filled?

>> **u/pizzahotdoglover** [+1]  (15 days later)
>> 
>> >I don't recall her ever using excessive force for no good reason and escalating when a calmer, more peaceful solution would have worked.
>> 
>> The thing is, her definition of a "solution" is total victory over her enemies and accomplishing all of her goals without compromise. There are probably a lot of ways in which she could have done things without so much escalation. 
>> 
>> For example, in the bank robbery, Taylor gets the Undersiders to change the plan to incorporate more direct confrontation, and she puts venomous spiders on everybody. She could have stuck with the original plan, or decided that it was too risky and backed out. 
>> 
>> How many times does Taylor ever retreat? I can't remember any. Even her "arrest" and surrender happen on her own terms. Whether she's fighting against Endbringers or the S9, she keeps fighting until the threat is driven out of her city. The only way to accomplish this is to escalate.

> **u/callmesalticidae** [+1]  *writes worldbuilding books* (3 hours later)
> 
> > Has anyone else read the first 40 or so updates of either of these and been left with a bitter taste? Why?
> 
> I stopped at some point after the Leviathan arc. The world seems to be built around making things as sucky as possible for people in general, and for Taylor in particular, and that gets annoying eventually.

> **u/subbboo** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> I agree with you. A Practical Guide to Evil is just mediocre in everything, mediocre writing, mediocre characters, mediocre story. Author seems to be very young and it shows not in a good way. Feels like any fantasy paperback timekiller off the shelf
> 
> Worm should've been great, but I lost interest because of mediocre characters. Battles and challenges became boring after a while, I was skim reading a lot.

>> **u/Takashoru** [+2]  (7 days later)
>> 
>> You... have some very high requirements.  At least couch your criticism in less objective evaluations, and practice a little less ad-hominem?
>> 
>> Your comment is low-effort, and not helpful either.  Couldn't you have aimed for at least one of two?

> **u/serge_cell** [-2]  (11 hours later)
> 
> You may need specific life experience to get Worm. Peopel who didn't experience catastrophes, wars, failed state and likes, personal tragedies or dangerous situation may not have framework to connect to it.

>> **u/royishere** [+8]  (20 hours later)
>> 
>> To be fair, you need a very traumatic past to understand Worm...

---