34 KiB
[RT?] Is Worth the Candle Truly an RT?
-
Author: u/Blizzgrarg *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/8t6lw4/rt_is_worth_the_candle_truly_an_rt/
-
Score: 19
-
Created: 2018-06-23T01:40:23
Post:
I'm partway through book V at the moment so expect heavy spoilers below.
By the subreddit's definition, there are 4 characteristics of RT. While WTC does pretty well with the latter 3, it gleefully fails the first, which is "Nothing happens solely because the plot requires it".
I'm a bit ambivalent because the story is clearly self-aware of its reality-breaking plot development. The characters themselves quite often comment on the unnaturalness of their situation. Numerous examples:
-
A lot of plot development happens ONLY because of convenient system prompts, the most prominent example being the "companion identification system". The main cast only picked up Grak and Val solely due to convenient system prompts.
-
The characters often comment on how they're stuck in a "narrative", their lives being played out in a way that an author might construct a story, namely cycles of conflict and resolution without ever a way out. Villains constantly come out of the woodwork (Juniper and Fenn cannot even go on a date without being mugged by randoms). Juniper frequently comes across items that he can identify and pieces of knowledge that are conveniently relevant to his goals.
-
Many of the scenarios the cast find themselves in seem to be constructed in game-like ways. All the statues are dangerous and sentient because that's how a GM would construct it. The cast is often stuck in situations where teleportation doesn't work due to environmental factors, rather than plotting by anyone else.
While the story is self-aware, at its core, it's a story about a group of flesh and blood people adventuring. All these coincidences and convenient plot devices heavily violate the RT stipulation that nothing must happen simply because the plot demands it. What do you guys think?
Comments:
u/alexanderwales [+79] Time flies like an arrow (37 minutes later)
I hate the definition on the sidebar. I don't think it's very good at defining the genre, and I don't think that it works at all when used as a checklist, which people always do, because the sidebar is put into bullet points, and bullet points lend themselves to checklists. See this discussion for what I feel is a better, more in-depth attempt by a number of people to define the genre. Specifically, see this comment by me about where the list in the sidebar actually came from.
I would change the sidebar, but getting an actual definition that matches community consensus is a lot of work, and I feel like my effort is probably spent elsewhere. Additionally, I have fairly obvious conflicts of interest on the matter.
u/sicutumbo [+10] (an hour later)
We could put it to a vote? Make a new sticky thread where people discuss alternative descriptions to put in the sidebar, then once the discussion has basically concluded put the top answers to a vote and make whatever the most preferred option the new sidebar description. I don't think it would require all that much time from you, although you obviously have a better estimate than me on that.
u/ketura [+6] Organizer (14 hours later)
I'll throw my hat behind this once again. Reddit is uniquely situated as a flexible voting platform, so we might as well use it. Set up pinned messages to discuss different aspects of the problem for a week or two, then pin an iteration or two of proposal threads, then pin the final voting thread in contest mode and declare the winner after the votes coalesce into something solid.
u/alexanderwales [+12] Time flies like an arrow (15 hours later)
Right, this is what I mean when I say that it's a lot of work, especially since it's not a conversation that I would want to sit out. I messaged the other mods though.
u/ketura [+9] Organizer (16 hours later)
I'd be more than happy to put together post templates and a schedule and pester people via pm when it's time to transition. Then it's down to just copy-paste and hitting send.
u/alexanderwales [+6] Time flies like an arrow (a day later)
Alright, that's the plan we're going with. Let me know via PM.
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (a day later)
Will do.
u/ketura [+6] Organizer (17 hours later)
Besides, I don't think you guys need to sit it out. And even if you did, I hear /u/CthulhuRaeJepsen would be happy to facilitate.
u/abcd_z [+3] (a day later)
Is that a joke?
u/ketura [+9] Organizer (a day later)
Yes and no. cthulhuraejepsen is Alexander Wales' alt, if you weren't aware of context, and so I was making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that they use alts if they were worried that their word would be taken with more weight than they think it should, as moderators.
u/CouteauBleu [+4] We are the Empire. (2 hours later)
Isn't it better to have a "good enough" solution than a solution you really don't like?
Also, if you really want to keep the status-quo, you could just add "What makes 'rational fiction' is subjective, feel free to post your stuff if you think it'll fit."
u/ArisKatsaris [+3] Sidebar Contender (12 hours later)
The current description at the sidebar is not "good enough", it's worse than completely absent.
u/vaegrim [+2] (an hour later)
It's funny; going back to that original comment, I think i'd have just preferred using the first bulleted list over the second. I wonder if that's close enough to the original to be a valid Schelling point without requiring a concerted "community action".
u/Fresh_C [+72] (25 minutes later)
I think it's a rational story because the characters themselves don't make dumb decisions "simply because the plot demands it".
Suspiciously convenient things happen to them, but the world was set up in such a way that this was meant to happen. The creator of the world (and to an extent Aerb itself) is as much of a character as Juniper and the rest of the party.
It's not so much that things happen because the plot requires it, but rather because the DM requires a world where interesting things constantly happen to Joon.
Also I think you may be looking at things through the lens of Joon a bit too much. While Joon sees things happening certain ways because "That's how a GM would contstruct it", there is always a logical in-world reason for why certain things occur. Things may seem game-like in general, but there has never been a situation (that I've noticed) where that game-like qualities would be out of place in the world that was created.
And there's nothing specifically in the rules that says the setting has to be normal, or even natural. It just has to be consistent. And all actions of the characters involved have to come from individual personal motivations, instead of just happening because it would be cool or dramatic.
I think the story satisfies those conditions, even if the world is game-like and artificial in nature.
u/Ratseye [+35] (28 minutes later)
I like this. It made me think of the whole "plot requires it" but in truth, the "plot" is actually a character, the DM. and the characters have expressed their interest in fighting that said plot. so it is kind of an antagonist of sorts.
u/RynnisOne [+11] (50 minutes later)
The whole "That's how a DM would do it" and "always a logical in-world reason for why certain things occur" is a sign of good worldbuilding and DM'ing.
u/icesharkk [+1] (4 days later)
Character/world internal consistency is required for rational fic. It's also required for good writing in general. Lack of internal consistency is why I hate primetime television. Characters don't have consistency, the plot has a finale to build up to and shocking twists are the bread and butter.
u/vallar57 [+4] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (12 hours later)
As the gang notes, it's not the events themselves that are out there, but the statistics of their encounters. For example, they find a disproportionate amount of items from Joon's games for no particular reason, but any single item has perfect in-world reason to be encountered.
u/Xtraordinaire [+0] Team Glimglam (5 hours later)
I totally agree, but I don't like the last sentence, where I feel a juxtaposition of game-likeness and [RT]. They are, in fact, aligned! The more a setting resembles a computer game, the closer it is to [RT].
u/Fresh_C [+8] (5 hours later)
I disagree, only because part of truly being rational is learning how to optimize your actions/decisions without having quests laid out for you or hard numbers to judge effectiveness.
The real world is messy. Working from a game like system is a crutch that real rational people don't have.
I'm not saying that stories with game like systems are inherently less rational. I'm just saying that they require a little less from the main characters in terms of actually needing to use their rationality in ways that mimic the real world.
(Note: I'm not 100% sure of this opinion even though I just sprouted it out like I believe it. It's really late here and I'd have to think about it deeper to be certain.)
u/Chosen_Pun [+5] The Chosen Ones (19 hours later)
In the context of fiction, being truly rational means optimizing your actions based on the facts of the universe you find yourself in. (As an aside, it's been argued around here before that Tengan Toppa Guren Lagann is technically already pretty rational given the setting's mechanics)
So, yeah, just being in a world that has quests laid out for you with clear goals, stated methods, weighable consequences, and concrete rewards makes being rational easier to do for the characters, and easier to follow for the readers; you could call it a cheap writing tactic if you want, but that last bit is very important for the genre! Even though real world problems aren't necessarily as simple as Quests, sometimes they can be, and deliberately framing them in those exact terms above can become a good, rational habit.
u/Fresh_C [+3] (19 hours later)
I think you're right that a game-like world makes it easier for readers to follow along and have a better of understanding of why the characters should or should not make certain choices.
My main point of contention with /u/Xtraordinaire's comment was the last line "The more a setting resembles a computer game, the closer it is to [RT]".
I don't think making a story increasingly more game-like actually makes it embody more of the characteristics of good rational fiction. As you said, some gamification can make it easier for readers to follow along. But at a certain point I think you get diminishing returns on this, and the story becomes more about how to rationally play the particular game that the author created rather than an interesting character driven story.
I'd argue that the greater importance that game mechanics have on a story, the less emphasis is placed on agency.
Edit: This may just be a difference of personal taste as well. Since I find that stories that get more bogged down in the more technical parts of world building and optimization don't hold my attention as long as stories that are more character driven. For example, Mother of Learning was a story that I initially enjoyed, but grew tired of as the author spent the majority of the time describing how the main character attempted to optimize his time and grow stronger. There are interesting character in interactions in the story, but they were not the focus. So the story began to feel more like watching someone grinding in a video game, than a captivating tale.
It's possible that someone who enjoys the optimization parts more than character driven moments would agree with /u/Xtraordinaire's statement.
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (20 hours later)
I'm going to emphasize the word "setting" in the quote you refer to. Not story, but setting.
In a typical computer game, there is no author (or GM) fiat. Instead, there are several layers of rules, and all the outcomes are subject to them (plus some rnd, but no more than the rules allow). This is a well-defined system that the player/protagonist has to navigate.
That doesn't automatically make a good story. A rational story isn't necessarily a good story, and neither is a rationalist one.
u/None [+17] (15 minutes later)
You're right - Worth the Candle is hardly absent of plot and pacing intervention. But they're characteristics of rational fiction, not intrinsic attributes, for a reason, and that's because often times meeting all of the characteristics is hard or impossible within the constraints of the story.
Nonetheless, I think that Worth the Candle is really good at avoiding exactly what you're saying. Just because it happened because the plot required it doesn't mean it happened solely because the plot required it - from a Doylist perspective it has, maybe, but there is usually a Watsonian explanation in the work itself. This is lazier than pure simulation, and obvious, but Worth the Candle isn't as rigorously plotted and written as some of Alexander Wales' other works - the exposed gears of the "game" are what they are, a convenient tool for the author. It certainly holds a place on the subreddit.
EDIT: This isn't really a formal principle, but I'd like to say additionally that whether or not a reader is impressed or entertained by something clearly explained as an afterthought is a good contributor to how it feels for them to read it. A reader concerned that this was a harem self-insert story might object more to the fact that, conveniently, all of his party members save Grak have identified as female - the avenues for nitpicking depend entirely on whether something has broken your suspension of disbelief. The characteristics for rational fiction are really good at lowering the risk of breaking the suspension of disbelief, but if you're familiar enough with the Rule of Cool and other forms of emotional manipulation you can safely drop them without making a story bad.
EDIT: EDIT: And Brandon Sanderson says that you can't solve problems in a story with a system you don't understand, but notes as a corrolary that you can cause them with one.
u/icesharkk [+1] (4 days later)
Ooh that Sanderson quote is good!
u/Nimelennar [+13] (17 hours later)
The main thing that would weigh against WtC being a "rational fic," in my mind, would be the antagonists.
I'll compare with Mother of Learning.
In MoL, we have four main antagonists: Quatach Ichl (and the Ibasans), Sudomir, the Cult of the Dragon Below, and Red Robe.
Except for Red Robe, whose motives, like his identity, have been kept secret, these antagonists have been explored in detail. Quatach Ichl has a plan that's in the interests of Ulquaan Ibasa, and it seems like a good bet that it'll work, if the invasion succeeds. Sudomir is highly unstable and his goal is extremely weird, but the invasion is about the only way that it could work. The Cult is doing something stupidly risky, but they'll basically have a god on a leash if they can pull it off. Their plans are rational, work towards the well-defined goals of the ones planning, and, even without Red Robe assisting, have proven difficult to derail even with time travel.
On the other hand, WtC's antagonists aren't really explored much. The gold mage wants gold. The soul mage wants freedom, and to learn more about souls. Larkspur wants political power. The backstabbing thieves from the zombie city want money. The DM is inscrutable.
Aside from the DM, everybody has tried to come after the PCs with overwhelming force of one form or another, and have simply been wrong about the level of force necessary, because they're not expecting to meet the next Uther Penndraig. No one has really tried to out-think the protagonists.
I'm reminded of a quote I came across, related to HPMOR. "If you make Frodo a Jedi, you have to give Sauron the Death Star."
And that's what I haven't really seen evidence of. The protagonists have well-defined goals and character motivations, and have been really good at using their advantages to make plans which further those goals. And that's great, and absolutely necessary for rational fiction. But we haven't really seen a rational antagonist, which would be about the only thing, in my mind, that would weigh against including WtC in that genre.
u/None [+2] (4 days later)
I personally think looking at the DM as an antagonist and his potential interventions in a purposeful light make for a rationalist story. Does the composition of Joon's companions say more about Joon, the DM, or the DM's conception of what Joon wants? The DM seems to be nearly all powerful, but likely not Omnipotent. I believe he has knowable motivations.
u/Nimelennar [+5] (5 days later)
To be honest, and contrary to what I say above, I can't really think of the DM as an antagonist, because nothing that has been shown has given any indication that his goals are opposed to Joon's. True, Juniper would rather achieve those goals with a lot less drama than what the GM would prefer, but that's not the GM being an antagonist so much as a nuisance.
Still, I'll concede that at some point in the future, when Joon is strong enough to oppose the GM directly and their goals don't align, the GM's character could be explored to a point where his rationality will be exposed. However, I don't see that happening any time soon, and I certainly haven't seen it yet.
u/icesharkk [+1] (4 days later)
That works on hpmor because there is a contrived reason for the antagonist to be present for the entire story arc. It's hard with shifting perspective to place your protagonist and antagonist in close proximity for long periods of time safely.
u/Nimelennar [+3] (5 days later)
I don't necessarily mean that there needs to be a single overarching nemesis for Joon & Co. to defeat. Smaller villains of smaller arcs can still be demonstrated to be rational.
I'll give an example for something that could have happened.
Uniquities hears of the activities of the Council of Arches, and figures that it's their job to lock it down and put an end to it. It's threatening the stability of the Empire, after all.
They send a scout party to evaluate Amaryllis's capabilities (having assumed she's in charge), and get a taste of the sheer power that the PCs have. They backtrack, and start to look closer at the party and its recent actions.
Eventually, after a few more encounters, they figure out exactly who and what Joon is (the next Uther) and immediately switch sides, because opposing him is the worst idea ever. And besides, if it gets to a point where he needs to be neutralized, like the monster that Uther became so long ago (dun dun DUN!), better to be close, and in a position of trust, to make that strike if, gods forbid, it becomes necessary. They join up, like they do in the actual story, and we end up just about exactly where we are, but with an interesting conflict between two rational forces having taken place and having been resolved.
That would be a rational antagonist. Not Larkspur, who never once stopped to question whether he should continue opposing a person with the obvious power being displayed; not soul-mage-I-forget-his-name, who decides that the best way to ensure his own safety is to meddle with the souls of the good friends of the multidisciplinary magical prodigy and take them hostage. Someone who, having touched a hot surface and been burnt, pulls their hand back, as opposed to doubling down.
u/RespectTheMidget [+7] (52 minutes later)
Just because there's a meta-system that's affecting their actions doesn't break the rule by itself. It just means that cause and effect is manipulated by a system that they have to account for in their decisions. The characters are doing their best to map the system, then exploit or circumvent it as best serves their goals, that the system is designed to encourage narrative or game-like outcomes is irrelevant.
To put it another way if a character is able to kill their rival by finding their weakness by accident in the final confrontation it breaks the rule. (Wicked Witch demise)
If the weakness is placed there for the character to find by another of the rival's enemies who is using the character as a proxy it doesn't break the rule. (Good Witch is using Dorothy as an unwitting assassin)
If the character deduces that the weakness being conveniently available is highly unlikely and co-opts the assassination plot to whatever goal they desire it's rational.
I think WTC is the third example here. The DM's system that manipulates Joon and company is like the manipulator's assassination plot. When Joon uses narrative knowledge to guide decisions in a system where narratives are observably real it's as rational as using any other knowledge relevant to the situation.
u/muns4colleg [+7] (a day later)
Honestly the fact that there's so much contention of this subject casts serious doubt as to rational fiction even being useful as a genre construct. Like if you have any piece of fiction it should be fairly easy to slot it into fantasy or sci fi or conspiracy narrative or any other genre and it should be relatively easy to say whether it's rational or no. But when you have very iconic examples of rational fiction not being accepted as rational what do you get?
u/RynnisOne [+5] (48 minutes later)
Spoilers and such. Turn back if you don't wanna know.
Having self-aware characters who are genre-savvy and make decisions based upon that knowledge seem rather rational to me.
The fact that they are all in a simulation sort of removes 1. The main character was uncertain of this, but once he pumped his Intelligence score high enough we were told of it, and when he spoke to the Dungeon Master it was confirmed. Yeah, it's kinda hard to accept Lit RPG as Rational in normal cases, but in this one the main character knows he is in a created world and acts accordingly. The fact that his friends don't, because they are part of that world, fits together well.
The fact that a Dungeon Master is setting up challenges and such deals with 2 and 3. If this were happening just out of plot convenience, it would be a sensible complaint, but there is an active sapient intelligence out there setting these events into motion in a way that will be interesting. It was confirmed this world was set up for the main character as the player, and while the world does have all manner of other beings going about their lives, things are naturally going to be 'bent' toward providing a more complex experience for him.
u/cretan_bull [+4] (4 hours later)
Rationality is Systematized Winning
It's all well and good to complain about the setting of Worth the Candle -- that it's completely unrealistic and unreasonable for the universe to be controlled and manipulated by a sapient DM with goals conspicuously aligned with producing an interesting narrative -- but if you were in Juniper's shoes, if you found yourself in the completely unreasonable position of being in a world seeming cobbled together from D&D campaigns and subject to the whims of an apparently omnipotent and capricious DM, then it would be somewhat less than optimal to ignore those observations.
Rationality is a property of a cognitive process, in particular, the requirement that the agent uses all the information at its disposal to produce decisions that result in as good an outcome as possible. It is not a prescription that the rules of the universe work a particular way. Like Phillip K. Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
If you find that reality is "unrealistic", then tough luck, but it does no good to complain about it. A rational actor updates their internal models accordingly, formulates hypotheses, performs experiments to test those hypotheses, and gets on with making decisions as well as they can given the information they have.
And Juniper does pretty much that. He certainly considers how utterly ridiculous and impossible his situation is, and seriously considers the possibility that he's in a simulation, but absent any other viable courses of action he tries to determine the rules of the world and moves on with making decisions to the best of his ability.
A number of other comments have been made on the shortcoming of the checklist in the sidebar; my view is that a rational story is nothing more or less than a story where characters are rational (or at least approximately rational, subject to the constraint that humans are not perfectly intelligent and some are conspicuously less intelligent than others). The premise of the story is entirely orthogonal to this requirement, except to the extent that it must be internally consistent. The D&D-derived universe, the game mechanics, the DM: all those things are merely part of the premise and the author can chose the premise to be whatever they like. It's up to the characters to work within the premise they're given, whatever its rules might be.
u/ArisKatsaris [+4] Sidebar Contender (12 hours later)
the RT stipulation that nothing must happen simply because the plot demands it. What do you guys think?
The RT stipulations at the sidebar are IMO a bad description of what this genre is like, something that a single person threw together, without good and proper thought & discussion of what the definiting characteristics of rational fiction are like -- those listed characteristic obfuscate more than they illuminate. They look like mere praise of rational fiction rather than a proper description of it. They're stuck there, impossible to change, out of sheer inertia.
My own suggestion for the characteristics of rational fiction is this:
In Rational Fiction:
- The author displays respect for the value of intelligence, reason, forethought, and preparation.
- The author attempts to explore the moral and material implications and consequences of the elements in the story, and to investigate alternate solutions to presented problems, even if they violate the usual conventions of the genre.
- The author doesn't use 'narrativium'. The characters should not rely on events happening as they would happen in a story, unless there's explicitly a force conspiring to make them happen this way. (Any usage of destiny, divine providence, miracles, willpower-produced powerups, etc, must be justified in-story or not used at all.)
'Worth the Candle' is rational fiction because though narrativium exists, it exists on a Watsonian level. There's explicitly a force conspiring to make things follow a narrative. This force is discussed by the characters, it's part of the world.
u/icesharkk [+2] (4 days later)
I like this the best. It has the added advantage of helping reconcile how I feel about Dresden files despite dresden typically not being considered rational text
u/Escapement [+3] Ankh-Morpork City Watch (an hour later)
Whether you consider WTC rational fiction will depend on two major criteria
What exact definition of rational / rationalist / etc. fiction you use.
How much in your opinion the work in question satisfies those criteria.
I personally prefer to define Science Fiction using the extensional definition Damon Knight gives:
Science fiction means what we point to when we say it.
The obvious parallel extensional definition for Rational Fiction is of course
Rational fiction means what we point to when we say it.
That is, I don't think there's a perfect intensional definition of 'rational fiction' that labels everything I'd consider rational and non-rational appropriately and concisely, that fits neatly into a half dozen sentences. I personally feel like Worth The Candle is definitely rational fiction, and I'm very comfortable with pointing to WTC and saying "Rational Fiction".
There are several reasons that influence my classification of WTC. For one, my idea of rational fiction includes elements that are at least partially cultural, including a number of shibboleths, signifiers, and references that WTC hits in spades. The story was very obviously written from a rationalist-informed point-of-view by a rationalist community member and considers and plays with common rationalist ideas and tropes constantly, and where it subverts or entirely avoids those rationalists ideas and tropes it is doing so knowingly, with a wink and a nod towards them.
To discuss what you most take issue with, Worth The Candle, in having a plot driven at least partially by the fact a nigh-omnipotent character or setting force has values that include enacting narrative tropes, is treading familiar ground for rationalist fiction. Terry Pratchett, who influenced a lot of rational writers and was at least partially there himself fairly often, played with this idea a ton, most explicitly and dramatically in Witches Abroad but really throughout his entire oeuvre. Scott Alexander's Unsong is extremely definitely rationalist fiction and similarly did very much a similar thing with it's plot and 'coincidences'. And Practical Guide to Evil is of course probably the poster child for this idea, if Worth The Candle isn't. And then there's Erogamer, which is super rationalist. Basically, the whole idea of a powerful character (or non-sentient setting element) enforcing or enacting a world with more typical story tropes on a character who then learns that this is happening and attempts to predict, subvert, or otherwise exploit these tropes is a theme we've seen in a bunch of rationalist and rationalist-adjacent books - it makes for a good 'excuse' to encounter traditional tropes that the rational character can then react to rationally. I don't think that having a particular character or setting element like that is irrational or disqualifies a work from the rationalist canon.
u/CouteauBleu [+6] We are the Empire. (4 minutes later)
Who cares? Words are just labels, and WtC works the way it is.
u/Ratseye [+20] (21 minutes later)
I disagree with this comment because people may come here to see how rational fiction can operate; remove that and we may as well call ourselves WebSerials or something.
But i do think the story fits because the story is character driven. The prompts deliver options, but the characters are rational and (spoilers) the MC meets the DM and changes how things work a bit. I'm not good with words but I think someone else will explain better than me.
u/LeifCarrotson [+5] (2 hours later)
> meets the DM and changes how things work
I think there's a major difference between WtC, where the DM's narrative influence is a real, in-universe effect, and non-rational fiction, where things happen without any in-universe justification due to an authorial narrative influence.
It's a convenient tool that does happen to make the story easily tweaked by the author - and let's be careful not to abuse it - but it fits in as a logical extension of the worldbuilding.
u/Blizzgrarg [+5] (7 minutes later)
I didn't say the story was bad, merely that it might not fit strictly within this subreddit.
u/CouteauBleu [+4] We are the Empire. (26 minutes later)
Then we get back to "words are labels".
It's written by a popular r/rational author, and the way you put it, out of the four sidebar criteria it hits the mark on three. Therefore we can assume that most r/rational readers will like it. I don't think anything else is necessary.
u/PeaceBear0 [+5] (49 minutes later)
How does "words are labels" imply "it doesn't matter what words to use to describe things"?
u/CouteauBleu [+2] We are the Empire. (2 hours later)
Word choice does matter when you're trying to describe something. But I think the whole "Does this specific story match this specific definition of a word that is also the title of this subreddit" discussion is navel-gazing.
We can easily determine that WtC is likely to appeal to (a reasonable portion of) r/rational readers. I don't see why we'd need to ask "But is it really rational?"
u/Blizzgrarg [+3] (6 hours later)
Because definitions are important to those who enjoy discussing the genre.
My original comment was not meant to be a "WTC is not a rational fiction. you should all stop reading it!" It was meant to open a discussion on whether the story fits the genre, given its admittedly unique story structure.
u/vaegrim [+5] (an hour later)
By adding the word "just" as a diminutive between "are" and "labels".
u/renegadeduck [+1] picky but enthusiastic (15 hours later)
Perhaps the largest theme in Worth the Candle is the characters trying to escape from the narrative.
The work is effectively a commentary on and investigation of that rule.