79 KiB
[META] /r/rational “Characteristics of Rational Fiction” Sidebar Rewrite Discussion, Week 2: Solution Brainstorming
-
Author: u/ketura Organizer*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/8xqtp0/meta_rrational_characteristics_of_rational/
-
Score: 20
-
Created: 2018-07-10T16:29:38
Post:
#####Week 1: Problem Discussion
#####Week 2: Solution Brainstorming [You Are Here]
Having had time to truly attack the problem of classification, we now move on to solutions. Have a framework that might work, but no bullet points? Have a well-worded bullet point but no framework to put it in? This is the time to post all the bits and pieces of good starts in one place, where ideas can start to form and mutate as they interact with one another.
#####Week 3: Solution Proposals [2018-07-17]
With the grand marketplace of solution ideas brought to everyone’s attention the week before, we now have a chance to try our hand at composing a definite, authoritative update to the sidebar. Top-level posts must all be full solution proposals, i.e. a replacement for the relevant section in the sidebar.
#####Week 4: Solution Voting [2018-07-24]
Our grand journey come to an end, we now take all solution proposals from the last thread and create a contest mode vote-only thread (with a companion discussion thread) to run for a week or more. Once the allotted time has run out, the winner is declared and the sidebar updated, to huzzahs and parades and, to be certain, an absolute and utter dearth of drama.
Having jumped through all the myriad proper discussion hoops, we’ve finally arrived at the point where we can start coming up with an actual solution. Keep the various aspects of the problems discussed in the previous thread in mind, and start working those brains on coming up with a proper set of solutions that matches all the constraints (to the best of our ability).
If you have only a partial solution or bullet point you think should be addressed, feel free to post just that. If you see someone’s complete solution doesn’t cover a crucial aspect, bring it up and start poking holes. This will be both forge and marketplace of solution ideas, so post and critique accordingly.
Solution authors are highly encouraged to post their rationale alongside their solution, as well as outlining which problems are being solved, responding to critique, and otherwise nurturing their solution post to be the best that it can be.
Take your time. Next week any complete solutions can be posted as candidates for voting, so the focus should be on getting solutions polished here before then.
Summary of last week’s problem thread:
- Current definition isn’t specific enough (it’s easy to interpret the bullet points as applying to all good fiction)
- Current definition is too specific (the bullet points focus on non-fundamental aspects of rational fiction and thus miss the mark)
- The canonical definition should be inclusive enough to permit community growth
- The canonical definition should be satisfying to the expectations of current membership
- Any solution should be able to be applied to already existing works
- Any solution should act as a guide for up-and-coming works
- The sidebar ought to select for high quality
- The sidebar ought not to diffuse the definition of “rational fiction” into meaninglessness
Please try and keep the above points (and the rest of the discussion which is too large to post in this margin) in mind while considering your solutions.
#####If you feel like a week isn’t going to be long enough, please speak up in the designated comment thread below.
Comments:
u/0Gitaxian0 [+16] Sidebar Contestant (an hour later)
Rather than “the world has consistent rules,” I think the rules being explained is a big part of rational fiction. You can write a good, internally consistent story without needing to actually explain the rules the world operates on to the reader, but a big part of how people engage with rational fiction is speculation based on those rules.
To give an example, a fictional world where airships are a common method of transportation doesn’t need to explain why they’re more common in this world than they are in real life to be consistent, it just needs to ensure characters consistently make use of them when you’d expect them to. A rational story would in addition to that explain why airships are a common form of transportation and the effects that difference has on other parts of the world.
u/None [+9] (4 hours later)
Yea, rules being investigated and exploited by characters is a big part of what makes rational stories interesting to me.
u/alexanderwales [+8] Time flies like an arrow (2 days later)
Hrm.
Okay, imagine a story where two houses, both alike in dignity -- well, fine, imagine Romeo and Juliet. Pretty classically not what anyone would think of using the RT tag on, unless they're being completely contrarian.
In this new story, the plot follows Romeo and Juliet without deviating at all. The dialogue is all the same, the actions the characters take are the same, etc. However, interspersed with the actual plot of the story, there are a handful of long digressions into:
- trade along the Adige
- the principle holdings of the various houses
- the business considerations of an alchemist making a sleeping draught
- the mechanisms of such a draught, and the procedures that were followed in determining when and how a person had died
- the legal problems that an apothecary might face for selling a fast-acting poison, as well as a secondary digression on the role of the guilds in forming law
Now, would that story be more of what we mean by RT? I suppose I would argue that it would ... but the RT stuff is only the stuff that we added, and we haven't really "infected" the main plot of the story all that much, so maybe the background to the story is RT, but the story itself is not? After all, the bits of exposition we've added haven't given us any predictive power as far as the actual story goes, because they haven't touched the story.
Don't we need characters interacting with those rules in some way, or at least aware of them so that can inform the plot and characterization?
u/0Gitaxian0 [+3] Sidebar Contestant (3 days later)
I wanted to focus on a single bullet point, but there should definitely be at least one other requirement to count as rational fiction focused on characters. I'm just not sure how I'd phrase it yet.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (4 days later)
I made a similar example below with Hemingway. Other interesting idea: if you add "an evil almost invincible white whale roams the seas" to the rules of our world, "Moby Dick" totally fits the bill of rational fiction up to the part where it launches in long digressions about the very consistent mechanics of all that is happening.
The solution I suggested is to distinguish between two axes, how much a story possesses rationality, and how much it needs it. Romeo and Juliet in a way certainly possesses it - if we account for the absolutely realistic detail of two teenagers in love being the stupidest creatures in the Universe - but it didn't intrinsically need to. It just happens to. I'd argue there are certain types of story that need more to be rational, and that stick out more when they don't, and often directly lose in quality because of this lack.
u/SevereCircle [+3] (6 hours later)
I think I agree but at some point there is no why, there's just the fundamental laws of physics of the hypothetical universe. There's a distinction between explaining why the fundamental rules are the way they are and explaining why the resulting world is the way it is.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+3] Sidebar Contestant (11 hours later)
Like most things in fiction it’s about the reader’s perception. It needs to feel explained enough that the reader is inspired to think about the implications.
u/derefr [+3] (8 hours later)
"Show, don't tell" still applies, though, I think.
To be simulationist, IMHO, a story† must simply demonstrate the implications of rule "in action" well-enough that the reader understands the rule, appreciates its edge-cases, and can predict how further interactions with the rule will go.
A rational story, then, is a simulationist story under the above definition, where, additionally, there are at least some characters ("rational characters") who are—or who become—as aware of the (important) rules and their implications / edge-cases / interactions as the reader is.
Let's talk about cringe humour. Cringe humour is humour generated from set-ups where the audience is aware of a (social) rule, that a character is not. The character not only violates the rule, but continues to violate the rule, because they have low "awareness of the need to update"—i.e. they are not very good at noticing when there is a rule in play which is affecting them, which they are not yet aware of.
A rational character is a character who is immune to being the subject of cringe-humour. They can still violate the rule initially, but they'll never continue to violate a rule, because—as long as they're "at their best"—they'll always be aware of any new rule, and quickly begin attempting to figure out what it is. Whether they immediately succeed in deducing the rule is somewhat irrelevant—as long as they're trying, it's not a cringe-humour situation any more.
A rational story is just a simulationist story with rational characters in it. (A non-simulationist story with rational characters in it is a supercategory of the CluelessMystery.)
† Simulationism as a concept extends to games (and the term came from there originally.) A simulationist game is one that allows the player easy access to a "controlled environment" where they can test the rules of the game-as-simulation; it is also often a game that rewards such testing with power that would be inaccessible otherwise. (See e.g. Magic: The Gathering, or early-edition Dungeons and Dragons, where there are "decks" or "builds" that do crazy "broken" things, that the rules were actually designed to promote, rather than prevent.)
This probably implies that there is a way to be a "rational player" of a game, by prioritizing a combination of:
attempting to extract rules-knowledge from the game (that doesn't necessarily want to give it to you), and
using newly-acquired rules-knowledge to Win (or, at least, to be more aware of what Winning and Losing look like.)
It's a sort of half-scientist, half-munchkin perspective, where rather than trying to discover edge-cases to a game by brute force, you intentionally execute experiments that give you the highest ROI in increasing the fidelity of your rules-model of the game; and then you attempt to analytically discover edge-cases in your model.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (8 hours later)
I really like this. The rules are communicated, shown, and available for the
playerreader to think about, and then a character exists in the story doing the same thing. Simple and elegant.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+1] Sidebar Contestant (12 hours later)
Of course “show, don’t tell” applies, sorry if I implied it didn’t.
I’m not really sure what you mean by Simulationist since I’ve only ever seen it applied to games and your definition is different from the one I’m familiar with anyway. I’d shy away from using the term here because “simulation” to me has the implication of starting from a ruleset and allowing the story to develop from it, which is a valid writing technique but not the only way to write Rational stories.
u/None [+3] (3 days later)
HPMOR, for example, does not attempt to fully explain magic: why it exists and how it interacts with known reality (not counting the WoG Dumbledore's letter).
u/0Gitaxian0 [+1] Sidebar Contestant (4 days later)
Maybe my example isn't the best, but HPMOR does go into the rules of the world in a way central to the story - the biggest example being transfiguration magic. Some fairly specific rules are laid out governing how transfiguration magic works, the implications of those rules such as transfiguration sickness, and the implications of breaking those rules with the philosopher's stone.
To go back to the airship example, a rationalist story with airships might mention the existence of a nonvolatile gas that can be used for more lift than any in real life, and if that gas would have other uses relevant to the story they would be explored as well.
u/Noumero [+12] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (7 hours later)
I propose to divide our "definition" in two.
The actual definition, which encompasses our preferences for rational characters, true moral conflicts, and consistent worlds, and defines "rationalist fiction" as a subset of rational fiction.
A collection of unrelated tropes we came to collectively enjoy, which are nonetheless important.
###Definition
Rational fiction is fiction that features people who honestly try to achieve their goals, as successfully as they could given their intelligence, motivations, and resources. The important part is that they do not act as plot demands. They don't hold Idiot Balls, don't conveniently "forget" about things, don't get angry for no reason, and so on.
It's a continuum, and could vary in "depth" and "breadth".
"Depth" is how well a given character exemplifies the virtues of rationality, how well they pursue their goals.
- Rational fiction could have stupid or irrational characters, as long as their beliefs are realistic (i. e., something a real person could believe in, not a strawman) and they continue to honestly pursue them, with no out-of-character behaviour.
This also leads to realistic motivations/morals.
Smart people exemplify rationality better, however. A competent protagonist or a team of main characters using their intelligence to solve their problems is a classic example of rational fiction.
When a character tries to become more rational, i. e. to improve their ability to achieve their goals, we get rationalist fiction.
"Breadth" reflects the number of levels of the narrative that are rational.
Only the protagonist is rational, or only some of the main characters.
All or the majority of plot-relevant characters are rational. (The protagonist, the antagonist, the minions, the allies, and so on.)
The background characters are rational. This is a more complicated one: it leads to consistent worldbuilding.
Worlds usually have history, and history has people (or other goal-driven agents). Did these people honestly try to pursue their goals? If yes, they should have a) noticed many inconsistencies in how reality behaves, if there are any inconsistencies, b) picked up all low-hanging fruits of munchkinry, c) created a realistic status quo.
If no inconsistencies in the world's rules are known, and all background characters (or "optimization forces"?) were modeled honestly, that means there's no inconsistencies. If low-hanging fruits start appearing as the story's plot moves along, characters should notice how strange it is that this has never happened before, and react accordingly. And if the story's civilization would've collapsed on itself if it was made up of real people, that means background people aren't modeled as real people.
"Rationality" of a work would be something like
depth x breadth, i. e. how many levels of the story are modeled as having people of which levels of sensibility.Let's test it. Consider these story ideas:
In a consistently-built cyberpunk world, a detective attempts to catch a competent serial killer. (Depth 2, Breadth 3.)
A group of characters are dropped into a strange world. It's riddled with inconsistencies: physical laws are broken seemingly at random, magic refuses to be comprehended, economy is unsustainable but sustains anyway... and yet none of the natives notice anything amiss. Our main characters attempt to figure out what's going on, using science and methods of rationality. (Depth 3, Breadth 1.)
A simple story set in our world, about a young, not especially gifted child learning math. (Depth 1, Breadth 3.)
A story set in a low-fantasy world, about savvy heroes attempting to bring down a similarly savvy evil overlord. The evil overlord is cartoonishly evil, because he honestly enjoys this for complex personal reasons. Economy doesn't make sense, but it's not really very plot-relevant. (Depth 2, Breadth 2.)
Same as 4, except the antagonist isn't human, it's an evil-maximizing AI. (Depth 2, Breadth 2.)
Same as 4, except only the protagonist is rational, and the overlord's cartoonish evil isn't explained. (Depth 2, Breadth 1.)
Same as 6, except the protagonist isn't rational. (Depth 1, Breadth 1.)
(I'm not proposing to use this
Depth x Breadthequation seriously, by the way, it's just for demonstration.)
###Tropes
Separately from the definition, we also have preferences for certain tropes. Such as:
Munchkinry.
Genre-savviness.
Deconstructions, i. e. re-imaginings of settings or plot points in a more realistic manner.
Hard Science-Fiction.
Fair-Play Whodunnit (solvable-by-the-reader).
Good writing with regards to Deus Ex Machinas, i. e. absence of them.
In-depth exploration of the world.
This list is incomplete, and, as I stated, these tropes aren't inherently related to the definition of rational fiction; they're just something we as a community came to like, because of where we come from, what genres the most high-quality rational stories occupy, what tropes are most convenient for showing off rational behaviour, and so on.
They could move a low-rationality story (e. g., my sixth example) up to something we would enjoy. Some of them are very important to us, such as Fair-Play Whodunnit and No-Deus-Ex-Machinas. Some are less important, such as HSF.
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (8 hours later)
I quite like the "grab bag" of related tropes ("if a story has X of these, we'll probably enjoy it even though it's not officially rational"), and I think that this should probably be attached to any other definition that comes up.
u/Noumero [+3] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (9 hours later)
That raises the problem of being concise. I think I could scale down my definition pretty well, but I'm not sure what to do with additional tropes. Some of them could be woven into the definition ("[tropes that] help in highlighting and exploring...", "[we] enjoy engaging with the work by 'solving' it..."), but things like "transhumanism" would be harder to include.
Write a Wiki article, perhaps?
u/I_Probably_Think [+2] (a day later)
I think the sidebar could mention that there are certain tropes and then the wiki would hold a list (possibly with descriptions/definitions).
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
That was my idea, yes.
u/ArisKatsaris [+3] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
They don't hold Idiot Balls, don't conveniently "forget" about things, don't get angry for no reason, and so on.
I feel that Harry in HPMOR held a pretty big Idiot Ball in regards to his mysterious connection to Quirrel. Would that disqualify HPMOR from being in the rational genre, even though it's what started it all?
This sort of thing feels to me not only highly subjective (what's an Idiot Ball for one reader may be an understandable flaw for another reader or the author) but also referring to the quality of the work rather than its genre. I feel that particular idiot ball of Harry to be a flaw in the story, but I don't feel it moves it outside the rational genre at all. Because the quality of the story and its membership in the rational genre are two separate things.
u/Silver_Swift [+1] (5 days later)
Because the quality of the story and its membership in the rational genre are two separate things.
The problem I have with this distinction is that a lot of what defines the genre in my view is a deliberate attempt to stay away from a specific set of very common storytelling flaws. Rational stories can, of course, still be bad (because there are a lot different kinds of flaws and not all of them disqualify you from being rational fiction), but to some extend saying that a story is rational is making a statement about the quality of the work.
Honestly, I think it might be better to think of rational fiction as a qualifier that attaches to other genres, rather than as a genre on its own. You can write rational fiction in just about every genre you feel like, but you can't write just rational fiction. Rational Fantasy and Rational Sci-Fi are the most common combinations and I can easily imagine rational westerns, rational animes, rational horror, rational mysteries and even rational romance stories, but I come up short trying to imagine a rational story that isn't also part of some other genre.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (8 days later)
rational animes
Do you have a moment to talk abuot our Lord and Savior
ZabuzaMarked for Death?
u/GeneralExtension [+1] (16 days later)
I think it might be better to think of rational fiction as a qualifier that attaches to other genres, rather than as a genre on its own.
I think most genres are modifiers themselves, and exclusivity is an effect of some modifiers being perceived as dichotomies. Fantasy versus Sci-Fi for instance. These modifiers also occasionally contain molds that aren't always followed - some people find rational fantasy reminds them of sci-fi, that kind of thing.
I come up short trying to imagine a rational story that isn't also part of some other genre.
Remove 'story' and you've got non-fiction?
u/haiku_fornification [+21] (an hour later)
As I've said in the previous thread, I think the characteristics of rational fiction should shift from defining what it is, to defining what it does. This would promote more fruitful discussion which is particularly important as a lot of rational writing exists as amateur work on the on internet and could use the extra attention.
As an example, take the following:
The fictional world has consistent rules, and sticks to them.
And turn it into something like:
It focuses on exploring a complex and coherent setting.
This does two things. One, it acknowledges that rational fiction is about more than just internal consistency - it also needs to have extra depth to it. A lot of fiction is consistent simply by the virtue of not focusing on its setting and this would be conveniently separated by this definition. Two, it moves us away from the binary approach of consistent and inconsistent rules.
I would employ the same sort of procedure for all bullet points. As in, move away from "rational fiction is so and so" towards "rational fiction does so and so". Besides the benefit I mentioned in the beginning, it's more true to how a genre comes to be in my opinion. Rarely do people set out to write something that's neatly confined to arbitrary standards, however they do quite often have an idea of what they want to accomplish with their writing.
u/Gelifyal [+4] (2 hours later)
I heavily like this line of thought. Even if we don't use the suggestion verbatim, the direction is one I support.
It gives the breathing room to not be a simple checkbox and lines up with my own discussion last week about each person having their own personal measurement of rational fiction (the 80% rational fiction idea: where one person can allow some mishaps in the story but still consider it rational because of other focuses).
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (5 hours later)
I can imagine a rational story in a simplistic setting -- you don't need a lot of rules or a complex world. It's important, though, that the protagonist deeply explores (and thus exploits) what is there. So how about:
It focuses on deeply exploring the rules of a coherent setting
But then, Mother of Learning doesn't do this, and it definitely belongs in this sub (according to the votes). What do you make of that?
u/Gelifyal [+7] (6 hours later)
MoL does do that. In its magic system (which is explored quite a bit, from the shaping exercises to wards, and empathy stuff). It also does that in the setting itself regarding the timeloop, going from the required astrology and deepening from there.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (6 hours later)
You're actually right about that -- the world-building is there, so yes, the author explores the system. I should have been more precise: Zorian doesn't explicitly sit down to figure out the rules and exploit them to nearly the same degree as we see in some other stories. So that part does not seem to be a necessary condition for rational fiction.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+9] Sidebar Contestant (6 hours later)
It’s less about the characters exploring it than it is about giving the reader the ability to explore it.
u/ArisKatsaris [+3] Sidebar Contender (2 days later)
Don't confuse what the story (or an author) does with what the individual characters do.
u/derefr [+3] (8 hours later)
Very interesting. Even though you say:
Rarely do people set out to write something that's neatly confined to arbitrary standards
...I would say that it's actually very helpful to have a standard which is phrased in terms of generative, creative guidelines for "How to write rational fiction", rather than a set of criteria for "How to judge whether something already-written is rational fiction." Even of you're using it to judge already-written things.
It allows the reader to "work forward" from an abstract premise to evaluate whether the process taken by an author was one that "put rationality" into the work.
I.e., it separates "is this a rational work" from "is this the work of an experienced, skillful author." A work might be clearly rational (i.e. a lot of rationality was put into it), but that fact might be obscured by the author's inability to e.g. write intelligent characters. I don't think such authors "aren't writing rational fiction"; they're just writing bad fiction that is, nevertheless, rational fiction.
Or, to put that another way: a band can compose a blues song and then perform it so unskilfully that it sounds like a dance song. If another band with more experienced talent in it were to cover the song, though, it'd clearly be a blues song.
So there's a separation between the "genre of songwriting", and the "genre of musical performance." And the best way to see whether something is of a particular genre of songwriting—without the sheet music—is to look past the performance to imagine what went into writing the song.
If "Rational fiction" is a "genre of songwriting", then we should be looking into what goes into writing the song, rather than looking at the performance.
u/ArisKatsaris [+8] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
The genre of comedy is not defined by the characters necessarily being comedians, or necessarily making jokes at each other, it's defined by what the author is attempting to do, namely elicit laughter from the readership.
Any definition that contains how the characters are supposed to act or be like, seems to me far too restrictive and missing the point. Every single character could be an idiot, and the story could still be in the rational genre.
A description of the rational genre, would seem to me about what the author attempts to do, the attitude they're putting into the story, what the readership is seeking to find in the story.
To me these are the two important qualities, as I've written before:
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.
In my earlier suggestion for a rewrite I previously had a third bullet (About how 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.))
But I think even that becomes overly specific, and it actually follows from the two bullets above. The consistent world without arbitrary plot contrivances, is a necessary background in order to showcase the value of intelligence/preparation/etc, and also a necessity in order to truly meaningfully explore consequences.
Talking about lack of narrativium too much makes it seems as if the author can't have their story sometimes have plot-convenient things happen. I feel they can.
u/Gelifyal [+3] (a day later)
I like the bullets made here.
u/LieGroupE8 [+3] ** (2 days later)
I like this approach, defining rational fiction via intent and trying to give principles that automatically generate the other tropes of rational fiction. The criticisms I have are 1) not every genre is most naturally defined via intent, 2) readers do not have access to the author's mind, only to the words on the page, and there must be something about the words on the page such that intent is recognizable.
Regarding (1), although comedy seems naturally definable in terms of intent, genres like action or romance seem naturally definable in terms of what's contained in the writing; namely, "action scenes" and "plots centered around relationships." These specific attributes of the stories are what draws audiences in the first place.
Regarding (2), if an author intends to write a comedy, but uses none of the conventional forms or techniques of comedy, then the humor may be so subtle that the audience doesn't consider the work a comedy. (Of course, conventional techniques can shift as people pioneer new ones, and we don't want to discourage pioneering in rational fiction).
It's unclear how much rational fiction should be defined by author intent as opposed to specific techniques used in the writing. There may be room for a mixed definition, such as "rational fiction displays respect for themes of intelligence, reason, and logical consequences; this is usually presented in the writing via competent and intelligent characters and thorough exploration of the mechanics of a setting." (I'm not satisfied with that definition, but it's a start).
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (6 days later)
How would you feel that after the two bullets describing the intent, we had some additional bullets, indicating the elements most often used for that purpose? E.g.
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.
For the above purposes, rational fiction often contains:
- Consistent worldbuilding. In preexisting settings (like fanfiction) the author seeks to remove or justify seeming incongruencies.
- Intelligent characters that seek to understand their world, and to competently pursue their goals in accordance with their value systems.
- A focus on the thought-processes of the characters as they pursue said goals.
- Themes and topics that relate to the extensive exploration of solution-space, e.g. metaethics, effective altruism, munchkinism, transhumanism.
u/LieGroupE8 [+2] ** (7 days later)
I like the idea of additional bullet points to clarify the definition. Maybe not these specific ones, but something like them.
u/1337_w0n [+6] (13 hours later)
I think that it needs to be said, though as far as I can see it has not yet: the thing that we talk about when we use the words "rational fiction" is category that is not adequately classified by a single word in English.
That is to say, it is not a genre or a technical term. Rather, "rational fiction" is a category that includes a genre, stories that fulfill a technical definition, and an artistic movement that is defined by themes and techniques that are endemic to our community.
To re-iterate: Saying "BOOK is a rational fiction" is equivalent to saying R(b), where "R(b)" is an extended OR statement with each term being an extremely complex compound statement. We cannot get away with saying "it's a genre where at least n of the following conditions are met [insert remarkably short list of specific points]". Of course, giving that as a sufficient but not necessary condition of a rational fiction is fine, so long as there is a stipulation that meeting few or no requirements does not disqualify any particular story (keep in mind HPMoR had a wildly irrational magic system).
So we need a definition that is more inclusive than exclusive. I know it runs counter to the sensibilities of this subreddit as a whole, but any exclusions should probably be more (both in terms of mechanism used and language to express) of a gut feeling than as a list of disqualifiers. I say this because artistic movements (like the one we are currently discussing) are essentially a natural progression of a culture in an artistic fugue state. They are a mess, and when the culture starts eating itself over what to include and disclude, the movement can stagnate and halt, usually becoming toxic along the way. I don't want that to happen; we need to grow more if we are to have an impact.
So I don't think we should restrict what is rational fiction too much, if we want our community to grow and our movement to have some effect on the world. That's half the reason we're here, right?
We should classify rational fiction as what it is: an art movement defined loosely by our community, and a genre that is defined by works in that movement. A rough draft:
Rational fiction is an artistic movement in literature where stories generally touch upon themes of philosophy revolving around epistemology, utilitarian ethics, realism, solipsism, humanism, transhumanism, atheism , agnosticism, and others that are usually held by individuals with a worldview that also includes several of those. Further, the story is typically driven by characters rather than a plot, and the actions, motivations, and thought processes of those characters are typically in line with what is expected of a character that has the degree of intelligence that character is portrayed as having by others of that degree of intelligence. Works with these themes and literary devices are conventionally grandfathered in to the "rational fiction" category, when they predate the movement.
u/LieGroupE8 [+3] ** (20 hours later)
I like your approach, though I think it is possible to combine it with bullet point criteria.
Rational fiction is a literary movement in which stories generally conform to a certain set of stylistic ideals, particularly Competence, Consistency, and Conviction as defined below.... These works tend to touch upon themes of epistemology, utilitarian ethics, transhumanism, ...
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+2] (20 hours later)
So I don't think we should restrict what is rational fiction too much, if we want our community to grow and our movement to have some effect on the world. That's half the reason we're here, right?
I'd prefer rational fiction staying as it is rather than growing into something different, even if that limits it. I also don't care about having an effect on the world -- I just want to enjoy entertaining fiction. I think you're generalizing a bit much from your own n=1.
u/causalchain [+5] (22 hours later)
I've noticed a couple ideas from other people that haven't yet been represented, so here is my attempt to do them justice:
Intellectual Payoff:
The enjoyment of the climax is a major defining feature of a genre. Romance has an emotional payoff of seeing the relationship progress. Power creep stories (E.g. Xianxia or RoyalRoadl) payoff from flaunting how over powered the MC is. Rational fiction often has the payoff of watching an overwhelming problem overcome with an intelligent solution. (I feel like this wording needs more work)
This requirement feeds into many of the things we enjoy in rational fiction:
- consistency is required to feel that the world, characters and problems are real and non-trivial.
- Explaining the rules lets us appreciate the problem and solution in it's entirety; as opposed to just being told that the problem and solution exist.
- A reader is more invested in a problem they can participate in solving.
- The intellectual payoff of the plan is heightened by watching the main characters' thought processes.
- Competent characters are needed on the protagonist's side to create and enact the intelligent solution, and on the antagonist's side to make the challenge reasonable + difficult and make the ultimate success rewarding
- Learning, Preparation, Munchkinism all give off intellectual payoff.
- cheating a problem using a dues ex machina or just ignoring minor problems (such as travel times) because they distract from the plot diminish the intellectual payoff at the end (the problems feel cherry picked and contrived)
- I'm stretching it a bit here: Worldbuilding can be seen as "solving a world". Taking the core ideas that the author wants in their world and extrapolating out to see the consequences in their stark honesty. things like WTC's "world-skewered" as a response to people losing their memories and claiming they created the world. They give the same feeling of intellectual payoff, like the author did something smart.
- Good Writing aims to maximise the readers' enjoyment and investment, so it is unsurprising that we would associate it with rational fiction and vice versa; good writing makes rational fiction feel more rational, since it has a greater payoff.
So as a conclusion, making a story trying to maximise intellectual payoff looks like rational fiction. If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it has non-trivial bayesian evidence that it is a duck.
A ridiculous number of tags:
have a tag for every subset of rational fiction imaginable and let people pick what they think applies to their story. Not so useful for defining rational fiction, but useful for organising the sub: in particular the concern that our subreddit is overly fond of sci-fi/fantasy transhumanist webfiction, a small subset of what we would consider "rational". With tags we can say: that is what rational fiction is and this is what we enjoy on the subreddit. u/Noumero has a similar opinion, using tropes to describe what we want to see in fiction. Now if only we had bayesian tagging... [80% RST]
Edit: Added a point, reworded statements.
u/Noumero [+4] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
I agree that intellectual pay-off is an important part of rational fiction; in my terminology, it would likely be an "important trope" woven into the sidebar definition.
However, I think that basing the entire definition on it would lead to some of the problems that the current definition causes. It's underspecified, for one.
Sure, consistency helps maintain SoD, which ensures that the reader stays engaged, which makes intellectual pay-off larger. However, relatable characters would also increase engagement, which would also increase the pay-off. Exciting action sequences? Discussion of pressing issues? Realistic portrayal of everyday activities? It all fits, if done well.
If we define rational fiction as fiction that tries to maximize intellectual pay-off, we risk being overwhelmed by fiction that maximizes its pay-off period, be that pay-off intellectual, emotional, or some other. It's not only "good fiction", just "engaging fiction".
We could try to somehow specify that the maximization has to go towards the "intellectual" part, but I'm not sure how exactly to do this, and I'm not sure if it would solve all issues.
u/causalchain [+3] (a day later)
Thanks for your response! I would indeed say that rational fiction would try to maximise intellectual payoffs in particular. It is underspecific, but I don't think it's as underspecific as you're presenting it to be (I'm sorry I'm picking at your examples, I'm not good at coming up with new ones):
Exciting action sequences: if it's exciting because it's showing main character intelligence then it absolutely fits in rational fiction. If it's just flashy, then it's optimising for other payoffs, not intellectual.
Discussion of pressing issues: I got the impression that's what a lot of transhumanist fiction is about. I don't really know what to say about it in rational fiction or for intellectual payoffs, it isn't what I require to see for either.
Relatable characters + Realistic portrayal of everyday activities: I agree that this is a contention point: empathy with character increases all payoffs, even if unrelated. I argue though, that this won't create an intellectual payoff on its own, only contribute.
Perhaps I could take a page from u/best_cat and reword the claim: Rational fiction tries to emphasize intellectual payoffs. This puts a spotlight on the kind of stories we like while also allowing "bad" examples of the genre; ones that give a little intellectual payoff and not much else.
I noticed another possible problem with this definition anyways: Mystery/detective stories. Do they give off intellectual payoffs? Do we count them as rational? From my biased POV, I could argue that detective stories give more of a "confusion unravelling" feeling than "that's smart".
[EVERYONE] Do you enjoy detective stories that follow the tenets of rational fiction as much as sci-fi/fantasy webnovels?
u/ben_oni [+3] (2 days later)
I noticed another possible problem with this definition anyways: Mystery/detective stories. Do they give off intellectual payoffs? Do we count them as rational? From my biased POV, I could argue that detective stories give more of a "confusion unravelling" feeling than "that's smart".
[EVERYONE] Do you enjoy detective stories that follow the tenets of rational fiction as much as sci-fi/fantasy webnovels?
Detective stories make me feel conflicted. I enjoy them, but I would never mistake them for rational stories. It's for the same reason Sherlock Holmes stories are narrated by Watson. If it were a rational story, I would expect to get Holmes perspective and thought processes. Obviously, this can't work for a mystery novel.
On the other hand, I really like Detective Conan because it's told from Conan's perspective. While it follows the typical pattern and doesn't spoil the prime mystery before the reveal, it does follow Conan as he solves smaller problems (usually related to the central conceit.) Though it's not rational per se, I feel it has some elements.
u/tjhance [+2] (2 days later)
If it were a rational story, I would expect to get Holmes perspective and thought processes. Obviously, this can't work for a mystery novel.
I don't see why this couldn't work for a mystery novel. Holmes is the detective, not the culprit. I don't see what would be so wrong if we got to follow his thought processes as he solved the case. In fact, I think it would be better than the alternative. (In the BBC sherlock show (which is admittedly terrible for many other reasons too), Holmes frequently taunts us with information we don't have, and it's really tiring and annoying.)
u/ben_oni [+2] (2 days later)
If it could work, I'd be very interested in seeing how it is done. The problem is that detective mysteries of these sorts are a kind of race between the detective and the audience to see who can solve the mystery first. If the audience has access to the detective's line of reasoning the whole way through, then there's no big reveal at the end.
u/best_cat [+3] (2 days later)
I noticed another possible problem with this definition anyways: Mystery/detective stories. Do they give off intellectual payoffs? Do we count them as rational? From my biased POV, I could argue that detective stories give more of a "confusion unravelling" feeling than "that's smart".
I think your definition works pretty well.
Cozy mysteries, like "the cat who ..." series, don't feel especially rational. But the author isn't spending their time setting up a complex reveal. They're building a really pleasant town.
Hard boiled detective stories could have a 'clever' bit at the end, where everything is revealed. But the bulk of the pages are spent on the characters physical tribulations.
Sherlock Holmes is kind of a toss up depending on how you read the authors intent.
Maybe Doyle was trying to write a fair play mystery. Then "tries to be a rational mystery, but bad" fits. The books would have been great if his clues had been better.
Or Doyle could have been writing about a superhero with the power of 'always right'. Then that's just some other genre
u/best_cat [+5] (3 days later)
Building off /u/causalchain
Rational fiction is a genre that tries to emphasize intellectually-satisfying payoffs. Some common techniques include:
- Deconstruction: Authors explore the deeper and less-obvious implications of an already established universe or trope.
- Fair Play Whodunits: These mysteries are solved using only clues and information that are available to the reader.
- Good versus Good Plots: Stories are driven by the conflict between two factions seeking different goals
- Onscreen Reasoning: Readers are invited to follow along as characters discover clever solutions to complex problems.
- Exploiting Consistent Rules: The work establishes (or borrows) a consistent set of rules and then shows how characters could take advantage of them.
That wording is bad. I'm probably missing some common techniques. But it sketches out a general shape and would be short enough to fit in a sidebar.
The definition is pretty short. But I think the questions "is this an emphasis of the work?" and "is the payoff any good?" are pretty central to the things I'd want to recommend here. Everything else is a list of tropes that aren't strictly necessary, but tend to point in the right direction.
Listing tropes like this gives room to say stuff like, "Mistborn has some great rational elements, especially when characters exploit the magic system, but the focus of the book is on the action-adventure."
u/Sonderjye [+4] (2 hours later)
Most, if not all, of the already existing rational fiction is either fantasy or sci-fi. Is this inherent to rational fiction or could you imagine rational fiction outside of those two genres?
u/ketura [+7] Organizer (2 hours later)
I think the reason for that is that rationality (the movement) is about harnessing the rules of your reality in your favor. It's easiest to show such a thing in settings where the rules are made up; if the author knew how to make a character in a story based on our reality succeed, they would be doing that instead of writing.
u/derefr [+1] (8 hours later)
if the author knew how to make a character in a story based on our reality succeed
Step one: have even more inherent executive-functioning capability than it takes to write a story about a character with high executive-functioning capability. :)
u/FireHawkDelta [+3] ** (9 hours later)
If the setting is an unusual situation in the real world with a different win condition from doing well in life, then it can be written by an author that isn't a genius and still be rational fiction. The Martian is rational-ish and is about the protagonist using their expertise to survive a hostile environment. A fair play whodunnit with a detective that uses real techniques could be rational.
u/turtleswamp [+2] (6 hours later)
I think the set of Rational Fiction that is set in the real would with no speculative elements or world-building embellishment end up being a subset of Literary Fiction.
u/keeper52 [+8] (6 hours later)
Rational fiction rewards gears-seeking.
By gears-seeking, I mean a stance to reading which is essentially the opposite of suspension of disbelief.
Suspension of disbelief involves accepting something as a brute fact, not trying to understand how it fits into a broader framework, not asking why, and not dwelling on it (as that would interfere with enjoying the story). A gears-seeking reader is doing the opposite of this: looking for the underlying processes behind what's happening, taking each thing that happens as deeply entangled with the rest of the world, and being curious about the nature of the coherent world in which these events are taking place. They are letting their world-modeling skills loose on this fictional world.
One place to see obvious symptoms of this approach is with fictional worlds that fall apart when modeled. Gears-seeking readers will notice plot holes, idiot balls, and similar, including deep flaws as well as nitpicks. Sometimes this leads to attempts to rationalize/retcon the world by devising their own set of underlying processes in which events much like the ones in the original story do fit together coherently. Rational fiction which is intended for gears-seeking readers typically strives for internal consistency, where the world runs on systematic "laws of physics" (even if they involve "magic"), the characters do things which make sense to them at the time, and the society is what you'd get from a whole bunch of these beings with their physics and technologies.
But internal consistency is not enough; rational fiction also rewards gears-seeking. The story is written so that gears-seeking leads to deeper understanding and appreciation of the story. For example, often a character's success depends on figuring out more about how the world works and scheming about how they can use these raw materials to accomplish what they want. If the story provides the reader with enough information about the world, then the story is calling on them to join in on seeking gears and scheming. (One of the main ways that a story fails to be "rational" is by not giving the reader enough information to seek gears; instead it's just one thing after another. The author may have a coherent world in mind, but the reader can't see enough of it to let their mind loose on the world.)
This is a main reason why rational fiction is often set in a magical world and alien society. Internally consistent realistic stories can just use the actual world as background; they don't require world-modeling from the author or the reader. Whereas an internally consistent fantasy world can easily call forth efforts to understand the gears behind the laws of magic, how the society ended up as it did, and what awesome opportunities might exist for a person in that world.
Much of EY's writing guide can be thought of as "how to write stories for gears-seeking readers."
u/LieGroupE8 [+9] ** (5 hours later)
I hereby propose the Three C's of rational(ist) fiction: Competence, Consistency, and Conviction.
Competence. Characters display general competence in reasoning and acting, the techniques of reasoning used by the characters are realistic, and the writing devotes special attention to showcasing these qualities.
Consistency. The setting is probabilistically self-consistent, i.e., the world and narrative are not implausibly unlikely given the setup, and the writing devotes special attention to showcasing this, often by means of consistent and transparent narrative rules that are strictly adhered to.
A note on Consistency: initial conditions, such as the magic system, are allowed to be a priori unlikely because they are boundary conditions for the story, and are thus subject to the anthropic principle of storytelling, which is "If the story weren't interesting, I wouldn't be telling it." So it's fine if a story starts with a character winning the lottery, but not fine if it's resolved that way. Other improbabilities that are okay include characters occasionally getting plausibly lucky (which does happen in real life), and things like the improbability of drawing a random hand in a card game. By drawing a hand in a card game, I mean that the odds of you drawing the exact 5-card hand that you have are 1/(52 choose 5), which is very small, but this is true of literally any hand you could draw, so you shouldn't conclude that you're in the matrix just because you are holding some unlikely hand by necessity. Also, budding off of Consistency, perhaps there is room for a fourth "C", Conservation, which means that most or all details relevant to the narrative are showcased early-on in-story, so no late Deus-ex-Machinas (arguably this is just a quality of good fiction, but perhaps it is still worth including?)
- Conviction. Not only are competence and consistency showcased in the story, but they are integral to the purpose, appeal, or themes of the story, often but not necessarily in the context of an overarching transhumanist philosophy.
I propose that "Rational" fiction generally possesses the first two qualities, whereas "Rationalist" fiction possesses all three.
The advantage of this setup is that it is simple and memorable, while corresponding to most people's intuitions about rationalist fiction and leaving room for flexible judgement. HPMOR solidly checks off all three criteria, Worm checks off the first two, and most ordinary fiction does not check off any criteria because it does not devote special narrative attention to showcasing competence and consistency. It goes along with what other people have said about defining rationalist fiction not by what it is, but by what it does in practice.
I also propose that rational(ist) fiction be evaluated on two axes: by whether or not it fits the genre, and whether or not it is well-executed. I think a story can be firmly rationalist by author intent, even if it is poorly written and poorly thought-out. I picture two axes: the x-axis has non-rationalist on the left and rationalist on the right, and the y-axis has poorly-executed at the bottom and well-executed at the top. A good rational(ist) fiction is in the top right; a good rational crack fic or rational-adjacent fic is in the top middle; a bad rational fic is in the lower right; a good non-rational fic is in the top left; etc. etc.
u/AcceptableBook [+3] (7 hours later)
I think the definition for conservation should go more like this:
Conservation: All details important to the narrative must either be mentioned or hinted at in the story significantly before they become relevant. They must also be logical extensions of other details present in the story.
I think the requirement to put it early-on in-story is a bit too restrictive and prevent effective world-building. As long as the details of a story one after the other, I think it should be fine.
u/LieGroupE8 [+2] ** (20 hours later)
I agree with this. However, I'm heavily leaning toward subsuming "conservation" under "consistency." Conservation seems to be a consequence of standard conservation of detail (Chekhov's gun) applied to consistency as defined above. I'm trying to find absolute minimal criteria which generate the standard rationalist tropes when fleshed out. Three is a nice number; if we yield to the temptation to add one more relevant thing, soon we'll have a useless list of twenty bullet points.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+2] Sidebar Contestant (7 hours later)
I think there’s a far simpler way to phrase your third point: “Rationality must be a core theme of the work.”
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (8 hours later)
That's cool and all, but sort of the point is that we're trying to define "rational fiction". You can't define a word using the word.
u/LieGroupE8 [+5] ** (20 hours later)
Well, /u/0Gitaxian0 may have a point. "Rationality" has its own independent meaning, which is essentially "winning." I don't see anything circular in defining rationalist fiction as something like "fiction which has rationality (winning, optimizing) as a core theme."
u/melmonella [+6] Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you (23 hours later)
That's the lesswrong meaning of the word. Seems a bit restrictive to base the understandability of the definition of a book genre on a specific set of philosophy blog posts.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (8 hours later)
I really like the concept of having a unified, related set of criteria (the 3 (or 4) C's). The specific C's you've picked also seem to be in the right direction.
u/best_cat [+7] (4 hours later)
I'd add text like, "Rationalist fiction tries to emphasize..."
The "emphasize" is there because I want the exploration of character-thinking to happen on screen. This lets us rule out stuff like well-written romance novels. The characters might be as vibrant as real people. But if that's not where the book is spending its energy, it's not a great fit.
The "tries to" is there to distinguish "is this in the genre?" from "is this any good?" That way I can say, "HPMOR has a plot hole in Chapter 217, JarJar obviously could have ..." without having to argue that a character's bad decision make the work irrational.
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (7 seconds later)
As a baseline, here is the current sidebar against which all other solutions ought to be compared:
##Characteristics of Rational Fiction:
Nothing happens solely because 'the plot requires it'. If characters do (or don't do) something, there must be a plausible reason.
Any factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil".
The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
The fictional world has consistent rules, and sticks to them.
##In Rationalist Fiction:
As well as the above,
Rationalist and scientific methods are used to demystify mysterious phenomena.
The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers.
The story is like a puzzle; readers can reach the same solution as the characters by using the information provided earlier in the story.
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (28 seconds later)
A week may or may not be long enough. The previous two threads have petered out after just a few days, although that could easily be because people were waiting for this thread to start contributing.
Potential options from this point: leave this thread up a week, leave it up for two weeks, replace it with a “part two” next week to continue the discussion afresh.
If you have opinions on this, please reply to this post.
u/None [+6] (an hour later)
I'd say a week is enough, this subreddit just isn't big enough to keep fresh ideas coming for more than a few days.
u/causalchain [+2] (21 hours later)
My current thoughts: A lot of the comments here nail only one or two aspects, so by their incompleteness can not be voted as a final definition. I can imagine this thread holding everyone's thoughts on what the solution should be, and then we hold a second thread where people construct complete definitions using the opinions here, pandering to as many people as possible. We can then vote on those complete definitions; this could hopefully reduce the feeling of minorities' ideas being ignored by democracy.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (22 hours later)
(see the schedule listing for week 3 in the OP)
u/causalchain [+2] (a day later)
I interpreted it as: This week we paste possible solutions, next week we vote on the solutions that we posted this week. I see that I was most likely mistaken. Do we post our solutions into a new voting thread next week?
u/causalchain [+2] (a day later)
Clearly we do.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (a day later)
This week we argue over solutions, next week we post the final versions of the solutions we end up with (with last minute arguments, adjustments, forks, and clean-ups), and then the week after that start actually voting.
u/LieGroupE8 [+1] ** (6 hours later)
Is there any downside to leaving this up for two weeks or longer to maximize the number of contributions? Why rush things?
A suggestion for part 3 of the discussion: specifically assign people to read over this thread and ensure that the best ideas in it are included in at least some of the part 3 proposals. Or request that certain people who responded to this thread also respond to part 3. It would be a shame if a great idea in this thread died in the next because the original author didn't follow up.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (8 hours later)
Is there any downside to leaving this up for two weeks or longer to maximize the number of contributions? Why rush things?
Loss of momentum, possibly (if we've picked any up; it's hard to tell).
I don't know if assigning people to review would work; I wouldn't say no to volunteers jumping in, but I'm the only one actually running this particular show so there's no one else to assign.
It would be a shame if a great idea in this thread died in the next because the original author didn't follow up.
I intend to announce that people feel free to repost their favorites in that thread so long as they link to the original author. That way a popular yet neglected option doesn't get left out.
u/Sonderjye [+3] (2 hours later)
Alongside what /u/0Gitaxian0 says then I feel a big part of rational is that it is possible for the reader to have come up with the same solution as a character to a given problem because the resources available to the character is outlined.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (5 hours later)
I agree. However, if (1) the world operates on consistent rules, and (2) characters are not saved by the plot (deus ex machina), then stories must be "solveable" by the reader, so I think we get "it is possible for the reader to have come up with the same solution" for free by requiring (1) and (2).
u/Sonderjye [+2] (7 days later)
I disagree. Say that you could control anybody by saying 'jeronimoe' but it only worked on Tuesdays and only if you had gotten at least 8 hours of sleep and were wearing blue clothing. If a protagonist used this rule, regardless of it's consistency with the established ruleset, to solve a problem and the reader didn't know about it earlier I wouldn't call it rational. Having consistent rules and bringing those to the awareness of the reader are two different things.
It's arbitrary sure but only about as arbitrary as the dungeon opening in the Daily Grind.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+1] (7 days later)
Oh you're right, my requirements are not sufficient.
u/Sonderjye [+1] (12 days later)
I applaud the change of mind. That is one of the things I like about the rationalist community.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (8 hours later)
Stories must be solvable, as in predicting what the main character can do at a given time? That I can agree with, tho as far as the general case goes, it's impossible to know what you don't know you don't know, so not all twists can be anticipated, which tarnishes the wording of 'solving the story' in my eyes a bit.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (5 hours later)
One of the current points is:
- The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
To me, this is a crucial part of rational fiction. However the formulation is too general, so that it is almost merely a feature of good fiction. Rational fiction is different in the degree; a rational character is expected to be particularly intelligent and resourceful. Additionally, this should be the main form of problem-solving; deus ex machina and similar should rarely if ever happen.
How can we change the formulation to reflect this? My suggestion:
- In rational fiction, characters solve problems through intelligence, knowledge, and resourcefulness, rather than relying on any deus ex machina
Please suggest better phrasings.
u/ben_oni [+1] (2 days later)
I would rather have
- Rational[ist] fiction reveals the thought processes of intelligent characters as they solve problems [...]
u/None [+3] (6 hours later)
At this stage should I be upvoting what I agree with or what I think is worth talking about?
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (8 hours later)
Actual agreement voting will come in the final thread, but for now we just want to get as many possible solutions as polished as possible. So whichever you think will help further that goal, I think.
u/kurtofconspiracy [+3] (3 days later)
Someone on the previous thread said something about thought being at the core of rational fiction. I think that could be used to refine a definition like Noumero's into something like this:
Rational fiction is fiction that explores the way people think to reach goals. This exploration tends to include:
- Worlds with consistent rules, so that thinking is a viable strategy to reach goals.
- Characters whose way of thinking is competent or otherwise interesting.
- Plots that revolve around the consequences of people seeking goals by thinking.
Rational fiction often contains tropes that are useful to such exploration, or that result from it, such as:
- Munchkinry.
- Genre-savviness.
- Deconstructions
- Hard Science-Fiction.
- Fair-Play Whodunnit (solvable-by-the-reader).
- In-depth exploration of the world.
Fiction that contains these is likely to interest this subreddit and if you enjoy them, you are likely to enjoy rational fiction.
I like the idea of a single definition that is explained, not added to, by bullet points.
I find the explorations of idiosyncratic thought patterns in eg. Natural D20 and Glimwarden immensely stimulating. They are still relatively good at achieving goals, but I believe that a story that explores how people utterly fail to reach goals because of specific flaws in their thinking could count as rational fiction.
Viewing the tropes as not something random that we happen to like, but as things that are useful to the exploration has the benefit that it fully embraces an author finding a way to use a trope we don't like to explore thought in a way have not seen before.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+3] Dai-Gurren Brigade (4 days later)
I'm a strong proponent for the idea of a 'spectrum', the fact that rationality isn't a binary property of a story but a dial that can move continuously from 0 to 1. At its minimum, 'rationality' simply means a form of good writing, i.e. avoiding some of the trappings of plot convenience that are very common in some narrative fiction.
However, if we limited ourselves to a definition like "a rational story is one where the setting follows clear rules and all characters act like human beings with an internal train of thought and consistent desires and motivations", we could get to the rather weird conclusion where, for example, Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" is rational fiction. It has clear, consistent rules (the ones of reality) and it has a single human character with very understandable motivations. Yet I think most of us would feel that, however good that novel is, it doesn't seem like it's what we would call "rational". It's a story where holding to those rules doesn't even pose a specific challenge, and where the motivations are understandable, sure, but also simple, and believably so. However its main purpose isn't to focus on any of that, but to serve as a metaphor of the harsh relationship between man and nature.
I wouldn't want to push it as far as to say that only sci-fi or fantasy fiction can be "rational", of course, that'd be way too restrictive, but the general point I'm trying to make is that we usually seem to intend "rationality" as something that pairs with plot-driven and world-building heavy kinds of stories, aka the ones where the temptation to just slip in one or two plot contrivances to move your goal along is strong, and where suspension of disbelief is both fragile and critical.
So I guess that I'd like to see something like "rationality isn't a genre, rationality is a quality" on the sidebar as the head declaration of intent. We can then clarify how there are works that need this quality more to achieve their intended purpose, and how we tend to be more interested in works that both need and possess it. Hemingway's novel would be an example of one that possesses it despite not really needing it (he could have made the same point with a surreal or supernatural parable, he chose realism instead). "Alice in Wonderland" or all of magical realism are examples of stories that neither need it nor possess it. A movie like, say, the recent "Life" is the example of a story that needed it, but didn't possess it.
u/kurtofconspiracy [+1] (4 days later)
Your point about rationality not being a genre made me think about how genres vary greatly in how much they need to dominate a story for the story to properly belong in the genre.
For example, a story can have plenty of romance without being a Romance story. It really needs to focus on romance to qualify. On the other hand, a story qualifies as scifi or fantasy by having specific world building elements, even if it doesn't focus on them at all. They are more world-genres than plot-genres. I think your "Old Man and the Sea" example shows that rationalism needs to be fairly dominant for a story to qualify. It is something of a plot-genre.
Which makes it not just a quality, though. I think that the definitions that talk about the goals and focus of the story avoid the problem you point out with a condition-based definition. As you say, "Old Man and the Sea":s purpose is not to focus on these things, so if we define the word in terms of purpose, it won't qualify. No need for an extra clause.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (4 days later)
a story qualifies as scifi or fantasy by having specific world building elements, even if it doesn't focus on them at all
Not necessarily. See the endless "is Star Wars sci-fi?" debate, with some people arguing that it's really a fantasy set in space, based on tropes and genre conventions. Personally I belong more to this camp. Just having space or advanced technology alone does not sci-fi make. Obviously all of this stuff is blurry anyway, there are no sharp boundaries between genres.
I'd say definitions about goals and focus concern what I call the "need" of the story. If I want to talk about technology and a self-consistent world, in theory it'd be obvious this needs to possess a certain level of rationality. Rational fiction stresses that aspect and focuses on actually trying to get it right.
u/turtleswamp [+2] (2 hours later)
IMO the essential qualities to rational fiction are:
The story does not take a stand against the principle that the world is knowable and that it is possible to learn how things work through experimentation, and preferably takes a stand in favor the usefulness of testing assumptions, trying ideas to see what happens, and generally doing science.
The story should generally show it's work, in the sense that the reader should be able to see (at least in retrospect, possibly with the aid of a more attentive reader pointing out something they forgot) how the characters came up with their ideas rather than falling back on interchangeable tech/magic-babble that doesn't comunicate any information abut how/why they expect it to work (reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, to overload the energy being like an overfilled ballon!), or relying on deductions that are indistinguishable from guesses that juts happen to be right.
Non essential but also important:
Smart tends to beat Virtuous. That is when a character does something just because it's the right (or in the case of villanous protagonists evil) thing to do without also having a plan, or doing it because it's has a high chance of success, rational fiction is more likely to have that choice turn out bad compared to fiction in general.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+4] (5 hours later)
The story does not take a stand against the principle that the world is knowable
Does it really make sense to define rational fiction by what it does not do? This will encompass many stories that I would not consider rational.
I definitely agree with your points, but I don't think they're getting at the essence of rational fiction.
u/turtleswamp [+2] (6 hours later)
You could reframe it as "takes a neutral or positive stance towards the utility of science" without changing the intention. It juts seemed to me that it would be less clear what a "neutral" stance was than "must not be explicitly or implicitly anti-science".
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (4 days later)
I think this goes more towards my definition of "rationalist" fiction, though obviously rational characters would use some scientific thinking in their day-to-day life and problem solving.
"Smart tends to beat Virtuous" IMHO is more of a consequence of setting up the universe with logical rules and sticking to them. If the universe you built does not care for morality (not all have to be like this! You could have a universe with an actual God who actively punishes evil), then sure, smart will probably win over not-so-well-thought-out, regardless of the moral motivations behind the latter.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (4 hours later)
What are some potential frameworks we can use?
Do we do a point-buy system? "Here are ten bullets worth 5-20 points each, if it scores more than 60 it will probably fit here."
A tiered bullet point list? "Rational Fiction fulfills both of these points, at least 2/4 of these points, and at least 6 of these 10 points".
A few different labels with different bullet point lists? "this is what qualifies as RST, this is an RT, this is an 'adjacent' fic, etc". If so, what labels do we use?
An unbounded list of bullet points like we have now?
A prose paragraph?
A mix of any or all of these?
u/None [+7] (6 hours later)
I prefer a qualitative system to a quantitative one.
u/LieGroupE8 [+2] ** (6 hours later)
I suggest a small number of criteria, such as the Three C's I talked about in my post. Under each criterion should be specific examples of how it might be implemented in a story, designed to give people a sense of what to look for without limiting them to the listed examples. In addition to the criteria, there should be a short rule for qualitative evaluation, such as "Rational fiction should conform to at least two criteria, or very strongly to one; rationalist fiction conforms to all three; rational-adjacent fiction recognizes but consciously subverts these criteria," etc.
u/Gelifyal [+2] (8 hours later)
Another question to ask is when do we ask those questions for a specific novel. (edit: regarding the qualifying questions.) Just earlier today I read a comment in a thread saying about someone's new chapter update:
it doesnt have any rational or rationalist element per se but i am willing to wait and see personally.
This isn't the first time I read a comment about delaying judgement to determine if something is rational. This suggests that this genre is more than what we might ask of fantasy genres, such as "does it have elves? magic? fairies?"
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (8 hours later)
Personally I think that ultimately, you can only truly judge a work when it's done. However, the best rational stories are fractal, and you can see rational elements at play in small situations in addition to what's been revealed of the plot.
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
Do we do a point-buy system?
Does any other genre EVER do a point-buy system for an explanation of what it is?
If not, then it's probably not a good idea to do a point-buy system, in order to explain what it is.
u/SevereCircle [+0] (6 hours later)
It may be a good idea to take a page from psychology and have our working definition of rational fiction be "fiction which matches at least n of the following qualities" rather than a list of strict requirements. It may be a good compromise to resolve what should be required and what shouldn't.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (8 hours later)
I like the simple yet flexible systems akin to this that have been brought up. It's clear if something does or does not meet the criteria, yet not everything need be painted with the same brush.