It's complicated. I like HPMOR, but... not necessarily because it's rational?
I mean, Eliezer is an impressive writer whose style resonates with many people. And it's indeed frustrating to see idiocy in fiction, like in Star Trek where the most powerful weapon is obviously the teleporter but no one acknowledges that. We can all agree on these things.
The problem is that removing idiocy doesn't automatically make a piece of fiction good. It seems like Eliezer has convinced a ton of nerds (I hate the word but let's roll with it) that they can succeed in writing fiction by applying this one weird trick. But you need much more than that.
Our enjoyment of stories comes mainly from emotions, which we then rationalize by saying "I liked that story because the hero was really smart". A few people have noticed that the actual plotlines in HPMOR are kinda weak, and it's really the characterization and "epic" style that makes the story work. A version of HPMOR that was just "smart", with better intrigue but less emotional appeal, wouldn't attract nearly as many people. A version of Worm without the raw moments of suffering would be kinda pointless to read. These things don't come for free if you just try to write rationally.
To conclude, here's a few recommendations:
- If you want to read a work that succeeds purely based on rationality, without much emotion or characterization, check out The Metropolitan Man. It's probably the best example of its kind, and a damn good read too.
- If you know your way around the Harry Potter universe and want another good fanfic in that setting, try The Seventh Horcrux. It doesn't give a fuck about rationality, but it's so amazing that you won't care.
- If you want something extremely smart, well written, and emotional at the same time, read anything by Ted Chiang. I'll never stop recommending him.
Ironically, most of the better bits, and indeed the overarching plot thread of HPMOR are largely down to the huge gaps in various characters' rational thought. If Harry had made the obvious "let's not trust the sinister guy that's obviously manipulative and definitely more experienced at it than me" leap right at the beginning it might have been a much shorter series.
Apart from young Harry picking up some of the flaws in the organization of Rowling's wizard world in the first couple of chapters in the first few chapters and the combat lesson scenes, there's really not that much rationality going on. Most of the rest of it is characters trying to achieve particular goals whilst being thwarted in large parts by emotional impulses and glaring oversights the reader is positively screaming for them to notice, which is pretty much Fiction 101.
Harry as a character in HPMOR works because he's implausibly precocious, ambitious and devious, which is quite cute in an 11 year old, not because he [sometimes] draws particularly well-reasoned conclusions. We do judge the series on whether we like him being really smart, but that's quite different from him being really rational.
If super-detached and accurate analysis of a situation is what turns you on then I think Arthur Conan Doyle nailed down the "rational fiction" genre with Sherlock Holmes over a century ago.
It's funny how Sherlock Holmes stories were considered very clever at first, then there was a backlash from authors like Agatha Christie who emphasized "realistic" psychology and disliked "magical" deductions from surface facts, and then it turned out that Conan Doyle's approach was right after all, because his stories predicted most of modern forensics. That's quite a high bar for future writers of rational fiction!
A general failing of HPMOR and most 'rational' fiction is they suffer from the same plot railroading. Instead of starting with a world rules, characters, problem, and unbiased evaluation of what happens they generally try and fast talk their way into some predefined plot.
In the short term this can work, but for longer plots you still need to whack ever increasing numbers of people with the stupid stick or backtrack and edit in a few plot relevant items at the beginning ex: The Martian.
I agree with you. And I'm happy enough if the fiction I'm reading is `rational enough' in the sense that the author has plugged the obvious plot holes I can come up within 30 seconds of thinking about the story.
Just makes the suspension of disbelief that much stronger.
HPMoR's biggest flaw when seen as a piece of entertainment is that the author spends so much effort trying to convince you how smart he is. (In contrast eg Harry Potter and the Natural 20 just wants you to enjoy yourself.)
> It seems like Eliezer has convinced a ton of nerds (I hate the word but let's roll with it) that they can succeed in writing fiction by applying this one weird trick.
I think it's tapping into a rich market, that of people who believe they are much more rational (read: smart) than the broader herd. The conviction is already there.
I think you're responding to a strawman version of Eliezer's writing advice. He's never claimed that rational, goal oriented characters are sufficient to write good fiction. His "(first) Three Laws of Fanfiction," for example, list these rules:
You can't make Frodo a Jedi unless you give Sauron the Death Star.
Originality isn't easy, but it is simple: Just don't do stuff that's already been done.
The premise of a story is a conflict and its resolution.
With that said, a story is much more interesting if it contains characters that respond to their world in a manner reminiscent of actual people even if it would be more convenient to the author for them to act differently. Lawrence Watt-Evans is a good example of an author who writes such stories.
I think Ted Chiang is awesome too, but his stories tend to be too short to really get into character choice that much. They're more about serving as vehicles for interesting ideas.
It really isn't that complicated. Nobody is claiming that there is a paint-by-numbers approach to writing the Novel of the Century. Even if you had such a technique, people would still screw it up. Nothing, not even "emotions," automatically makes a piece of fiction good. Nothing comes for free, ever. Packing in the emotions is no more likely to make your writing good than packing in the rationality. The best you can do is inspire people to write and experiment, so that some good stuff is written along with some bad stuff, because that's just how it goes. Especially at the level of decent fanfic like HPMOR, it would be nice to see fewer instances of deus ex machina and naked wish-fulfillment fantasies.
> The problem is that removing idiocy doesn't automatically make a piece of fiction good.
Completely agree with your post, and especially this. I also second the Ted Chiang recommendation: as far as I can tell he's in a class of his own (and if there's anyone else out there like him, I'd love to know!). "Stories of Your Life and Others" is a good place to start and available on Kindle.
On the topic of rationality generally, I do find some author's have such a precise, rational voice that it's actually almost a relief to read them. I can think of a few non-fiction authors in particular, all somewhat controversial, but they also all speak with a refreshing clarity. It would be nice to see that more in fiction too.
I read the Metropolitan Man on this recommendation.
A very interesting take in many ways.
I do think that for the narrating characters, there was a certain sociopathic aspect.
Is there a place where people discuss these books after everyone's read them so you don't have to hide spoilers? I think the genre fits whatif-scenarios very well.
I think, books probably must have plot holes, one writer doesn't have the brain power to simulate the actions of so many people very well. Hence it's always a danger to introduce a supposedly supremely smart person...
Our enjoyment of stories comes mainly from emotions
There are entertaining fics, and sometime I want to simply be entertained and feel the emotion. But I enjoy rational or just realistic writing as well and I look for that qualities in basically all of the stories I want to read.
I second the Ted Chiang recommendation. I've only read his novella "Understand", but it tackled Eliezer-esque themes in a non-Eliezer-esque way. Actually, you've inspired me to go look up his other stuff.
Understand is probably my least favorite of Chiang's stories, because it's still too close to superpower fantasy. His other works are more about exploring ideas and emotions. My favorite is Liking What You See (http://www.ibooksonline.com/88/Text/liking.html).
> like in Star Trek where the most powerful weapon is obviously the teleporter but no one acknowledges that.
I'm not sure if that's universally the case in the Star Trek universe. At least in TNG, it seems to be recognized that teleporters (and similar technologies) can be used for military gain (such as covertly beaming away teams into hostile situations, beaming said away teams out of hostile situations, etc.), and the implication is that teleporter technology is not used very often as a direct weapon because of Starfleet's desire to explore rather than conquer.
I read this one for a while, and did not like it. It's hardly funny or thrilling, the only good thing is the sentence which compelled me to read me, which is: "I was sitting with all those Slytherins complaining about Muggles taking our jobs"
I mean, Eliezer is an impressive writer whose style resonates with many people. And it's indeed frustrating to see idiocy in fiction, like in Star Trek where the most powerful weapon is obviously the teleporter but no one acknowledges that. We can all agree on these things.
The problem is that removing idiocy doesn't automatically make a piece of fiction good. It seems like Eliezer has convinced a ton of nerds (I hate the word but let's roll with it) that they can succeed in writing fiction by applying this one weird trick. But you need much more than that.
Our enjoyment of stories comes mainly from emotions, which we then rationalize by saying "I liked that story because the hero was really smart". A few people have noticed that the actual plotlines in HPMOR are kinda weak, and it's really the characterization and "epic" style that makes the story work. A version of HPMOR that was just "smart", with better intrigue but less emotional appeal, wouldn't attract nearly as many people. A version of Worm without the raw moments of suffering would be kinda pointless to read. These things don't come for free if you just try to write rationally.
To conclude, here's a few recommendations:
- If you want to read a work that succeeds purely based on rationality, without much emotion or characterization, check out The Metropolitan Man. It's probably the best example of its kind, and a damn good read too.
- If you know your way around the Harry Potter universe and want another good fanfic in that setting, try The Seventh Horcrux. It doesn't give a fuck about rationality, but it's so amazing that you won't care.
- If you want something extremely smart, well written, and emotional at the same time, read anything by Ted Chiang. I'll never stop recommending him.