scrape_r_rational/data/cache/4oftzh.md

[Q] Is my story Rational?

Post:

So around a year and a half ago, I started writing a web serial called Nowhere Island University. (Note: the link leads to first chapter.)

I try to make characters who are motivated by their values rather than just being evil (for instance, one character joined a terrorist group because of a drone strike, the main character is doing much of what he does because someone convinced him only he could save the world, etc.) but I'm not sure I've done a good job explaining that. The story also is definitely like a puzzle. I have a plan for how the story to end, and I think keep the rules consistent.

The thing is, not only am I biased (I mean, I did put a lot of work into this thing,) but I also have no idea what exactly to define it as. Anyway, if you took the time to look over my work, thanks for taking the time.

Comments:

• u/TK17Studios:

  Yes, based on first chapter.
  
  Although, to be fair, when I tried to describe the characteristics of the rational genre to my (intelligent, well-read) cousin, he kept replying "But you're just talking about *good writing.*  Like, that's not *new.*"
  
  I wouldn't worry too much about boxes ... it's more about finding the story's audience than about tailoring the story *to* an audience (barring edge cases like a desire to promote thinly-veiled propaganda for worldchanging reasons).
  

  • u/FeepingCreature:

    > "But you're just talking about _good writing_."
    
    Not quite correct. There's lots of elements of good writing that run somewhat counter to rationalfic; for instance, symbolism, narrative causality, catharsis, etc. ... You can get those in rationalfic, of course, but only from the world's own causality. I guess it's a question of author skill, but the question is what's more important to sacrifice. Plus, regular good writing puts less limits on the things the author is allowed to do; Lord of the Rings is good but it's not _rational_, because it sets its problems up with undefined magic, which is good technique (Sanderson has a good article on that somewhere) but bad "reductionist worldbuilding". (And Orcs, of course.)
    

    • u/alexanderwales:

      I have a few ways of paring down what "rational fiction" means to me, and one of them is that there's no Rule of Cool: in rational fiction, it's not okay to suspend the rules of the world (or established characterization) in order to do something wicked sweet. You have to earn your wicked sweet moments. (Same goes for Rule of Drama, naturally.)
      

    • u/TK17Studios:

      I'm with you overall, but as a side note, Sanderson is a Bad Writer.
      

      • u/bassicallyboss:

        How is being a Bad Writer different than being a bad writer?
        

        • u/TK17Studios:

          In my head, it's the difference between being enjoyable-but-low-quality, and just plain bad.  Michael Bay is a Bad Director, and so is Zack Snyder, but their movies can still be fun to watch.  I know a lot of people who derive a lot of enjoyment out of Brandon Sanderson, and I'm not interested in doing something incredibly stupid like telling people they're wrong to enjoy a thing.  But it's store-brand junk food; I think *I'm* a better writer than Brandon Sanderson, and I'm not even at the top of the writers on this one tiny subreddit.
          
          As a concrete example, take the book Elantris. 
          
          (Spoilers below, not using spoiler tags b/c they're broken and truncating the text.)
          
          The whole magic system in Elantris is based on runes, essentially, and the system is powered by the giant-city-as-rune ... the buildings and landscaping were done specifically to create a giant magical character.  Then there was an earthquake, a giant crevice appeared in the city and ***gasp*** suddenly magic isn't working and all the wizards start looking like zombies.  And the whole climax of the book revolves around you, the reader, swallowing the idea that FOR LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS, NONE OF THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCED EXPERT MAGICIANS WHO KNEW THEIR MAGIC SYSTEM THROUGH AND THROUGH AND KNEW THAT THE PHYSICAL SHAPE OF RUNES MATTERED *EVER* CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THAT HEY, MAYBE THE REASON THINGS ARE SCREWED UP IS THE EARTHQUAKE MESSED WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT RUNE. <breathes heavily, recovers from rant>  The book has this young, ignorant Luke Skywalker-type Mary Sue figure make this realization decades later, after all the real wizards are dead and most of the lore has been lost, and has the audacity to play it as if that's somehow brilliant, rather than incredibly lame and also completely unrealistic.
          
          It's totally fine for people to love books like that, just like it's totally fine for me to eat an entire party-sized bag of Fritos once in a while.  But the fact that I derive enjoyment from the Fritos doesn't make them Healthy, and the fact that Sanderson can create experiences that some people enjoy doesn't make his writing Good.
          
          (Wheel of Time)
          
          In the final book, in addition to careless anachronisms like having Birgitte use the phrase 'anxiety levels,' he also just randomly shoehorns modern politics and social mores in, like when—for the first time in the entire series—he awkwardly drags a conversation around to THAT GUY LIKES MEN, THO just so he can have the two characters talking underscore that it's TOTALLY NOT A BIG DEAL, WHO CARES.
          
          #OPINIONS
          

          • u/abcd_z:

            Ooh, then I know an entire genre of writing that's Bad.  I've described the [xianxia genre](/r/noveltranslations) using the exact same metaphor you just did; eating junk food.
            
            Main character does what he wants, bows to nobody, advances through the ranks of martial cultivation at a breakneck speed due to some artifact or bloodline or whatnot, causing everybody to look down upon him right before he kicks their asses.  And all the female main characters eventually fall into his harem despite him showing social skills that are nothing impressive (and sometimes he's kind of creepy), and also *everybody is a dick.  Everybody in the entire world.*
            
            Probably so he can justify the aforementioned ass-kickings.
            

          • u/Nepene:

            The vast majority of the Elantrians were slain by the Reod due to riots after (people apparently didn't like them much), with the stronger ones who know more magic and theory being more prone to death or being disabled due to their strong connection with Aondor fucking them up. Ten years later Raoden reactivated it, not hundreds of years later. Knowledge of the connection of the land to the aons was fairly universal, although the city shape's connection was not in any of the books they read.
            
            The magic isn't powered by the city. It's powered by Aondor, an invisible field of divine energy which the city helps people tap into. The shape of the city was done in the distant past, and may have been based on precursor magic from Dominion and Devotion, the source of the energy field, and may not be understood by the Elantrians.
            
            The Elantrians may have fixed the issue in time if they had not been killed. After that it would have been very tricky for anyone to fix the city, as they'd have had to fight their way through multiple gangs. 
            
            This is fairly explicitly stated in the books (other than the precursor tech stuff), it's not some deep hidden theory. You should read the books more carefully. I thought it was a nice story to show the negative consequences of intellectual purges, something humanity has commonly done, and the value of books in enabling a quick recovery to high tech levels. 
            
            On the wheel of time- HPMOR was anachronistic. Historical realism has never been a key goal of rational fiction. And being supportive of gay people is good, I ave no objection to that.
            

          • u/bassicallyboss:

            Thanks for clarifying.  I felt pretty much the same way when I read *Mistborn*. (i.e., not terribly good, but an entertaining enough way to pass the time)  I was somewhat disappointed, since my first exposure to his writing was through Wheel of Time, which I thought was pretty well done, overall, though [like you, I had a few issues.](#s "  The modernisms got to me a little, but they didn't bother me as much as the random bits of carelessness.  For example, in one Mat chapter, something happened 'as if by magic.'  WoT characters have no concept of 'magic'; just of the One Power.  That one line bothered me as much the entire gay Borderlander incident.")
            
            For what it's worth, I read *The Way of Kings* and found it to be both enjoyable and well-written.  It might or might not be to your taste, but it's playing a league or two up from *Mistborn*.  I've heard it suggested that finishing Jordan's work really helped Sanderson's writing.  I can't say whether that's what happened, but the results are certainly there.
            

          • u/Roxolan:

            Posting in the Sanderson-bashing thread \o/
            
            What struck me about *The Final Empire* was just how incredibly cliché-laden it was. The protagonist is ☑ an orphan ☑ with important secret parentage ☑ who gets rare magical powers (which, through no effort of her own, are ☑ the *super* rare, extra powerful variant, and ☑ also come with mysterious mystical extras), then ☑ her home gets destroyed by the bad guy and she's forced into adventure, etc. etc. all the stations of the hero's journey.
            
            The tagline is "What if the Dark Lord won?" as if that's some bit of creative brilliance. Wow, your protagonist start out as the oppressed subject of an evil empire, I've never heard *that* one before.
            
            I even gave volume 2 a try, because my rationalist friend was singing its praise (and back then I hadn't learned the lesson of sunk costs in fiction). But  [I got the complete lack of self-awareness thrown into my face so hard](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mistborn/comments/2g6qka/spoilers_fe_the_most_irritating_paragraph_in_well/) I finally managed to walk away.
            

          • u/TennisMaster2:

            Do you mean to say poorly plotted?  When I see "bad writing," I think "low skill at the written word."
            

    • u/jesyspa:

      > Lord of the Rings is good but it's not rational, because it sets its problems up with undefined magic, which is good technique [...] but bad "reductionist worldbuilding".
      
      Could you perhaps expand on this?  I would call it rational, just set in a world with different laws.  That these are often not directly explained in the books is, IMHO, not an issue.
      

      • u/FeepingCreature:

        There is a larger story there that is plausibly rational, and the setting may qualify, but the _story_ is a story of Hobbits following their feelings and showcasing their racial qualities, while greater powers' greater plans move them like the pawns they are. Hell, the climax of the story is a morality play on the virtue of mercy, set up by _God_. Frodo is many things, brave, determined, even wise at times, but a rationalist hero he ain't.
        

        • u/jesyspa:

          I admit that I can't really imagine how the Fellowship could be the optimal group of people to destroy the ring.  I'll have to re-read the Council of Elrond and figure out how that was justified.
          
          Hang on, do you find that a rational story requires all (main?) characters to be rational?  If that's the case, I definitely agree rational and good writing neither contain the other.
          
          > Hell, the climax of the story is a morality play on the virtue of mercy, set up by God.
          
          Could you expand on this?  I don't recognise it in the plot at all.
          

          • u/FeepingCreature:

            > Hang on, do you find that a rational story requires all (main?) characters to be rational?
            
            No, but the story of Lord of the Rings is at its core the story of Frodo and Samwise; the rest of the characters are ... shall we say auxiliary? They aren't exactly part of the main story so much as they crossed it at some point, and then got their own B-track story to change up the monotony of "two hobbits go for a hike".
            
            > Could you expand on this? I don't recognise it in the plot at all.
            
            "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least. "
            

            • u/jesyspa:

              I get the feeling that most aspects of a "rational" story actually refer to the worldbuilding, rather than the book itself, with most of the actual content coming down to "good writing" (believable characters).  I don't think characters not munchkining their way to the top means that a story isn't rational; I don't really see how Frodo or Sam could have used their wits better.
              
              I definitely wouldn't call the rest a "B-track story".  Frodo and Sam played a crucial role (perhaps the crucial role), but the tale is about the world as a whole, not just about them with some side conflict thrown in.  For the same reason, I wouldn't call that the climax of the story, it puts too emphasis on something which is actually just part of a whole.
              

          • u/Roxolan:

            >  I can't really imagine how the Fellowship could be the optimal group of people to destroy the ring. I'll have to re-read the Council of Elrond and figure out how that was justified.
            
            Frodo was first to volunteer and has the ring, it would just be too awkward for anyone to argue. Gandalf would back him anyway, since he knows of hobbit's resistance to corruption. 
            
            Gandalf + Aragorn is a no-brainer.
            
            
            Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir, I don't remember the book well enough. The way the movie portrayed it though, after that flaming row, rejecting any of them would wound national prides and ruin diplomatic relationships right when they're most needed. Bloody politics. The Fellowship *does* need more than two competent members, but I'm sure Rivendell has its share of mighty elven warriors who are better at everything.
            
            Sam, Merry and Pippin... Yeah, no, there's really no excuse. Frodo would stand for Sam, but they can be made to see reason, I'm pretty sure. The hobbits are all there to be protagonists, characters with room to grow, not for any rational reason.
            

• u/narfanator:

  On Chapter 3. So far, pretty good.
  

  • u/gmrm4n:

    Thank you.
    

• u/rineSample:

  Unrelated, but "World Domination in Retrospect" is listed twice on your recommended links sidebar.
  
  Edit: Also, minor nit in Ch. 3: in the "Arbiet macht frei" sentence, you have "should" twice.
  

• u/Abpraestigio:

  Gotta say, I really like the story so far (I'm in book three), to the point that it has cost me a night of sleep.
  
  One thing I wonder is whether the Protag has either Precog, some kind of Luck-based power or an unconsious sort of defensive Telekinesis. Because the plot armour is strong with this one.
  
  The one thing that is annoying is that the protag occasionally speculates about things he already knows. Like wondering whether a person is trans after learning in the previous book that they got gender reassignment surgery.
  

• u/MoralRelativity:

  Thanks for writing this. Overall it's been quite enjoyable and I was disappointed a few minutes ago when I got up to date! How often do you publish new 'tracks'?
  

  • u/gmrm4n:

    Every Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. You can also subscribe [via RSS feed](https://nowhereislanduniversity.wordpress.com/feed/) or follow on [Wordpress.](https://widgets.wp.com/follow/index.html#) I also have an automated update every time I publish a chapter via [my twitter.](https://twitter.com/NowhereIslandU)
    
    Anyway, I hope that helped and I'm glad to hear you're enjoying this so far. Thanks for reading.
    

---