I think one of the other works has a wrong explanation as well, namely
(title)
Worth The Candle
(heavy spoilers)
WTC actually has an extreme amount of power-seeking behavior, exactly as the post says, but the actual end happens that way, it appears, because the author believes that retiring his characters in a manner of their choosing is desirable. To this end, one character abdicates responsibility, living out their life on earth. Another is given control of the universe, abolishes Hell, and then allows all the universe’s participants to weigh in on their preferences, with the new god character creating a series of heavens, several of which they find distasteful. I… am not sure how much gentler the author could have made this, to be honest. A singleton forms and allows diverse values— basically ideal.
What I mean is that your theory pays out as a ban on stories about any singleton, including in stories where the singleton does un-singletonly things. If that’s the case, any author who expects there are RSI-dynamics in their story is verboten, which is rough if it makes sense!
My understanding of your dynamic has a high false-positive rate: if I wrote fiction about Napoleon, it would look power-seeking (because he was), but this doesn’t seem like a useful red flag to me.
I think one of the other works has a wrong explanation as well, namely
(title)
Worth The Candle
(heavy spoilers)
WTC actually has an extreme amount of power-seeking behavior, exactly as the post says, but the actual end happens that way, it appears, because the author believes that retiring his characters in a manner of their choosing is desirable. To this end, one character abdicates responsibility, living out their life on earth. Another is given control of the universe, abolishes Hell, and then allows all the universe’s participants to weigh in on their preferences, with the new god character creating a series of heavens, several of which they find distasteful. I… am not sure how much gentler the author could have made this, to be honest. A singleton forms and allows diverse values— basically ideal.
This is precisely the attitude I am critiquing, and therefore I don’t find your comment very persuasive.
What I mean is that your theory pays out as a ban on stories about any singleton, including in stories where the singleton does un-singletonly things. If that’s the case, any author who expects there are RSI-dynamics in their story is verboten, which is rough if it makes sense!
My understanding of your dynamic has a high false-positive rate: if I wrote fiction about Napoleon, it would look power-seeking (because he was), but this doesn’t seem like a useful red flag to me.