scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/7xxi16.md

Rationalist Lit Fic Ideas

• Author: u/RavnaBergsndot *

• URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7xxi16/rationalist_lit_fic_ideas/

• Score: 6

• Created: 2018-02-16T08:51:13

Post:

Let's discuss the possibility and (maybe existent) cases of rationalist lit fics. In this thread we use stronger restrictions on the definition of "lit fic".

1. No "world building". The world should be the writer's understanding of the world they are currently living in.

2. No "survival thriller". The protagonist or important characters are not spending most of their time escaping or avoiding a mortal danger. Even if they have a terminal disease, the fiction should not be about them finding a cure.

3. No "talk shop". The fiction should not be about the protagonist using their problem solving skills on their job. "Scientists doing their job" usually belongs to scifi, not lit fic. "Detectives doing their job" usually belongs to murder mystery, not lit fic. "Physicians doing their job" usually belongs to patient-of-the-week medical soap opera, not lit fic. The words should be spent on problem solving skills applied to interpersonal relationships or inner struggles, not their career.

4. No fancy psychology. No PTSD/DID/Sociopathy/Psychopathy/Schizophrenia. The protagonist's inner world should be healthy and mundane most of the time.

5. No social commentary. Even if the readers want to believe the fiction has a political stance, they should have a hard time finding the evidence, if there's any, from the texts.

Would the result be more boring after applying these restrictions? Or would it be more challenging and exciting? Are rationalist lit fics just another name for "modern evolutionary psychology stories"? Or are all lit fics, not only rationalist ones, just cautionary tales of evolutionary psychology at their cores?

Comments:

u/baroqueSpiral [+25] (42 minutes later)

As a lit fic reader, "no social commentary" as a term of the definition of lit fic seems bizarre, if not bizarre enough. "Lit fic" as we know it today evolved from the 19th century tradition of literary realism, which was almost always political, if not in the one-sided American culture war polemic sense. I'd adjust 5 to "if the fiction has a political stance, the reader should be able to deduce it on the strength of their own critical thinking skills without the author yelling it in their ear (treat it almost like the solution to a murder mystery), and have some grounds on which to appreciate the story even if they don't agree with it."

t. Lukacs

u/wren42 [+5] (10 hours later)

agreed. it's impossible for a story not to comment on the society it portrays; rather, the rule should forbid excessive moralizing or preachiness.

u/muns4colleg [+16] (6 hours later)

4. No fancy psychology. No PTSD/DID/Sociopathy/Psychopathy/Schizophrenia. The protagonist's inner world should be healthy and mundane most of the time.

5. No social commentary. Even if the readers want to believe the fiction has a political stance, they should have a hard time finding the evidence, if there's any, from the texts.

Huh? I fail to see how either of these conflict with either rational fiction, or lterary fiction.

u/kaukamieli [+2] (2 days later)

He doesn't say they do. He is just asking would it be boring with more restrictions.

u/EliezerYudkowsky [+12] Godric Gryffindor (8 hours later)

I don't think that 4 and 5 are part of the conventional definition of literary fiction, quite the opposite, but I agree with them on the grounds that otherwise the story would be boring. That indeed is part of why I don't read literary fiction.

u/buckykat [+12] (10 hours later)

What the hell is the point of fiction which neither worldbuilds nor offers social commentary?

u/None [+12] (13 hours later)

Bitter English professors in unhappy marriages love writing stories about bitter English professors in unhappy marriages having affairs.

u/buckykat [+6] (14 hours later)

But why don't they write about bitter English professors in unhappy marriages having affairs with elves or princes/princesses of Mars or something as long as they're already committed to wish fulfillment?

u/vakusdrake [+9] (22 hours later)

Because it might actually be enjoyable to read and wouldn't be "serious" enough, which would make it scornworthy to other academics.

u/wren42 [+7] (11 hours later)

Art ^(tm)

u/None [+11] (3 hours later)

"Scientists doing their job" usually belongs to scifi, not lit fic.

I wonder what scifi you read if you think "Scientists doing their job" is scifi.

u/mathemagical-girl [+8] (10 hours later)

isaac asimov's robot stories mostly fit that bill

u/None [+2] (a day later)

It wouldn't make sense for OP to think of stories like Isaac Asimov's robot stories while writing this sentence, because they already excluded them with their first tenet of literary fiction.

u/mathemagical-girl [+2] (a day later)

i wasn't responding to op, i was responding to you.

u/None [+2] (a day later)

I already know that.

u/HieronymusBeta [+0] (10 hours later)

Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov aka The Good Doctor

u/None [+10] (3 hours later)

This is a weirdly narrow definition of lit fic, especially the "no fancy psychology" and "no social commentary". For example, To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf is, I'm pretty sure, classified as literature. It is packed with social commentary and weird psychology, with unhealthy people and deaths and dysfunctional families and delusions and just overall weird.

u/LieGroupE8 [+3] ** (9 hours later)

This is similar to this post I made a little while ago. Though I was a bit less restrictive with my criteria. I have a story in mind which takes place in reality and adheres to your principles (1) and (3) but slightly violates or bends (2), (4), (5). If I ever write it and post it here, you can be the judge of whether the slight violations payed off in a highly interesting story. But I do think with enough creativity you could make an interesting story within all 5 constraints (the post I linked contains a more detailed answer).

u/GaBeRockKing [+3] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (12 hours later)

I've talked about this before. tl;dr, no "rational fic" can possibly be more rational that history itself, so there's no real reason to read rational fiction set in the real world, as opposed to just reading biographies or non-rational fiction set in the real world.

u/everything-narrative [+3] Coral, Abide with Rubicon! (5 days later)

Rational Lit Fic is a contradiction in terms.

Lit Fic is a meta-style of writing in which the focus is on e.g. literary metatextuality, philosophy explained through otherwise mundane narrative, and insight into an 'ordinary' person. Lit Fic is an English professor committing adultery, or an Irishman going to a funeral.

Rat Fic is a meta-style of writing in which the focus is on e.g. scientific literacy, psychology, problem-solving, learning, and often exemplified in a non-mundane narrative, etc.

Rat Fic : STEM :: Lit Fic : Humanities

---