This leads to another comment on rationalist fiction: Most of it seems to be restricted to fan-fiction. The mold appears to be: “Let’s take a story in which the characters underutilized their opportunities and bestow them with intelligence, curiosity, common sense, creativity and genre-awareness”. The contrast between the fanfic and the canon is a major element of the story, and the canon an existing scaffold which saves the writer from having to create a context.
This isn’t a bad thing necessarily, just an observation.
Wait, what?! Is “a story where the protagonist behaves rationally” really a new genre of literature?
So, the question becomes, how do you recognize “rationalist” stories in non-fan-fic form? Is it simply the presence of show-your-work-smart characters? Is simply behaving rationally sufficient?
Every genre has a theme...romance, adventure, etc.
So where are the stories which are, fundamentally, about stuff like epistemology and moral philosophy?
So, the question becomes, how do you recognize “rationalist” stories in non-fan-fic form? Is it simply the presence of show-your-work-smart characters? Is simply behaving rationally sufficient?
Every genre has a theme...romance, adventure, etc.
I’d say the difference between “rationalists” stories and “non-rationalist” stories lies in the moral of the story, of the lessons the story teaches you.
I don’t think it’s a genre in the same way romance or adventure are. It’s more of a qualifier. You can have rationalist romance novels or rationalist adventure movies.
Although you could argue that it is a genre. While discussions about “genre” are often hard, since people don’t tend to agree on what makes something a genre.
But rationalist fiction already has a couple of genre conventions, such as no-one being allowed to hold the idiot ball or teaching the audience new and useful techniques for overcoming challenges.
So, the question becomes, how do you recognize “rationalist” stories in non-fan-fic form? Is it simply the presence of show-your-work-smart characters? Is simply behaving rationally sufficient?
That’s a great question. (And related to how to recognize rational people in real life.)
I’d say that there must be some characters which are obviously smarter than most people around them. Because that’s what happens in real life: there is the bell curve, so if all your characters are on a similar level, then the story is (a) not realistic, (b) the characters are selected by some intelligence filter which should be explicitly mentioned, or (c) the characters are all from the middle of the bell curve. Also, in real life the relative power of intelligent people is often reduced by compartmentalization, but this reduction would be much smaller for a rationalist hero.
So I’d say it’s behaving rationally while most of other people aren’t. The character should somehow reflect on the stupidity of others; whether by frustration from their inability to cooperate, or by enjoyment of how easily they are manipulated.
The character should somehow reflect on the stupidity of others; whether by frustration from their inability to cooperate, or by enjoyment of how easily they are manipulated.
I’m not sure I like that criteria. By that criteria alone, the original death note anime was rationalist fiction (judging by the first half), as is Artemis Fowl, Ender’s Game, and to some extent even Game of Thrones. There are a lot of stories where some characters are much smarter than others and know it, but consuming these works won’t teach anyone how to be smarter. (Other than the extent to which reading good fiction in general improves various things)
None of these stories actually teach the reader anything about epistemology. Even the linked Death Note fan fic...it uses rationality-associated words like “utility” and “prior” but if I didn’t already know what those words meant I would have just come away confused. (Granted, it’s still early in the story—but even so)
Also, it hasn’t yet broken the conceit of the story (For example, even a normal person of average intelligence would be surprised and curious about the existence of the supernatural, and would investigate that). I’d say that breaking the story conceit is another feature of rationalist fanfiction stories that has nothing to do with the character’s intelligence.
Well, I was disappointed with the Death Note fan fic, because it doesn’t seem to have added value beyond the original story. And I agree that exploring the supernatural should be a high priority for a rational person, once the supernatural is experimentally proven. Would it be so difficult to ask Ryuk whether there are additional magical items that could also be abused? I guess Ryuk would use an excuse of having “rules” against that, but at least it’s worth trying.
Having a rational superhero is a necessary condition for a rationalist story, not a sufficient condition. Ender’s Game could be a rationalist literature if it explained Ender’s reasoning better, and if Ender strategically tried to improve his understanding of the world. Okay, another necessary condition is not just that the superhero is super smart, but also that the super smartness is at least partially a result of a good strategy, which is shown to the reader.
This leads to another comment on rationalist fiction: Most of it seems to be restricted to fan-fiction. The mold appears to be: “Let’s take a story in which the characters underutilized their opportunities and bestow them with intelligence, curiosity, common sense, creativity and genre-awareness”. The contrast between the fanfic and the canon is a major element of the story, and the canon an existing scaffold which saves the writer from having to create a context.
This isn’t a bad thing necessarily, just an observation.
So, the question becomes, how do you recognize “rationalist” stories in non-fan-fic form? Is it simply the presence of show-your-work-smart characters? Is simply behaving rationally sufficient?
Every genre has a theme...romance, adventure, etc.
So where are the stories which are, fundamentally, about stuff like epistemology and moral philosophy?
I’d say the difference between “rationalists” stories and “non-rationalist” stories lies in the moral of the story, of the lessons the story teaches you.
I don’t think it’s a genre in the same way romance or adventure are. It’s more of a qualifier. You can have rationalist romance novels or rationalist adventure movies.
Although you could argue that it is a genre. While discussions about “genre” are often hard, since people don’t tend to agree on what makes something a genre.
But rationalist fiction already has a couple of genre conventions, such as no-one being allowed to hold the idiot ball or teaching the audience new and useful techniques for overcoming challenges.
That’s a great question. (And related to how to recognize rational people in real life.)
I’d say that there must be some characters which are obviously smarter than most people around them. Because that’s what happens in real life: there is the bell curve, so if all your characters are on a similar level, then the story is (a) not realistic, (b) the characters are selected by some intelligence filter which should be explicitly mentioned, or (c) the characters are all from the middle of the bell curve. Also, in real life the relative power of intelligent people is often reduced by compartmentalization, but this reduction would be much smaller for a rationalist hero.
So I’d say it’s behaving rationally while most of other people aren’t. The character should somehow reflect on the stupidity of others; whether by frustration from their inability to cooperate, or by enjoyment of how easily they are manipulated.
I’m not sure I like that criteria. By that criteria alone, the original death note anime was rationalist fiction (judging by the first half), as is Artemis Fowl, Ender’s Game, and to some extent even Game of Thrones. There are a lot of stories where some characters are much smarter than others and know it, but consuming these works won’t teach anyone how to be smarter. (Other than the extent to which reading good fiction in general improves various things)
None of these stories actually teach the reader anything about epistemology. Even the linked Death Note fan fic...it uses rationality-associated words like “utility” and “prior” but if I didn’t already know what those words meant I would have just come away confused. (Granted, it’s still early in the story—but even so)
Also, it hasn’t yet broken the conceit of the story (For example, even a normal person of average intelligence would be surprised and curious about the existence of the supernatural, and would investigate that). I’d say that breaking the story conceit is another feature of rationalist fanfiction stories that has nothing to do with the character’s intelligence.
Well, I was disappointed with the Death Note fan fic, because it doesn’t seem to have added value beyond the original story. And I agree that exploring the supernatural should be a high priority for a rational person, once the supernatural is experimentally proven. Would it be so difficult to ask Ryuk whether there are additional magical items that could also be abused? I guess Ryuk would use an excuse of having “rules” against that, but at least it’s worth trying.
Having a rational superhero is a necessary condition for a rationalist story, not a sufficient condition. Ender’s Game could be a rationalist literature if it explained Ender’s reasoning better, and if Ender strategically tried to improve his understanding of the world. Okay, another necessary condition is not just that the superhero is super smart, but also that the super smartness is at least partially a result of a good strategy, which is shown to the reader.