# Scientific concepts in a fantasy world



## Gryphos (Mar 24, 2015)

So as my fantasy world is reminiscent of the 19th century, I've come under not so much a problem as a peculiarity, that being that scientific theories have been produced in the world which directly correlate to theories produced in our real world. For example, that of evolution.

As we all know, in the real world the theory of evolution was created by Darwin (although an argument could be made for Lamarck, but that's another topic entirely). But obviously Darwin never existed in my fantasy world, so in my world it's not 'Charles Darwin's theory of evolution', it's 'Od & Eulices Lamb's theory of evolution'.

At one point in the story the MC makes a humorous comment about how when Od & Eulices had to convince people of evolution over intelligent design, they must have only had to point out two flaws in the latter: that humans can bite the inside of their cheek, and trip over their own feet.

Similarly, at one point the MC makes what we would call a 'Freudian slip', and recognises to himself that that was the case. Except, Freud doesn't exist. Seyyed Vahid, however, does exist. And so the MC actually makes a 'Vahidian slip'.

I'm just wondering if this would trouble any of you reading. Would it pull you out of the story to read about Od & Eulices' theory of evolution and Vahidian slips and Rorkworth's theory of relativity?


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 24, 2015)

Wouldn't bother me at all.

The only thing that really troubles me in worlds that combine science and technology is whether the co-existence of the two is logically consistent. For example, where magic is prevalent, one has to wonder whether and how certain scientific advances would come about. That's the sort of thing I think about.

But basically having a kind of alternate world where well-known scientific theories were discovered by individuals unique to the fantasy world doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 24, 2015)

For myself? No it wouldn't really pull me out of the story. It makes logical sense that people would come up with those theories and what not. However, there is a line you need to draw and make sure each fake theory matches as close as you can to the real theory. Because, if you don't do that, other readers with more scientific background than myself would likely get frustrated. It happens to me a lot when I watch TV about lawyers. I see them in the court room doing their thing and then something majorly incorrect happens and I'm like that lady in the GEICO commercial, "That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works!" Then I turn the channel to something else because I just lost my immersion because the writers failed to do even basic research on the subject.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 24, 2015)

@Brian

I do the same thing with both law and science. Although if this fantasy world also has magic, I suppose the fantasy version of the theories could diverge from the real theories in a way that is consistent with the magic present in the world. The author would just need to make sure that this is explained.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 24, 2015)

Steerpike,

I think that would make sense. I was mostly referencing things that are inaccurate and have no relation to the magic or the world. Like, when someone uses pop science to prove a point without bothering to do a quick fact check and find out that the alleged fact was taken clearly out of context.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 24, 2015)

I think that the way you describe it, I would probably associate a Vahidian slip with a Freudian slip. It'd feel a little like you'd just changed a name. Technically, you don't really need to do more, as the theory is sound - but pulling the reader's attention away from the story is usually not a good thing.
You could probably get away with it if you changed up the naming a little bit more though. Instead of "making a Vahidian slip", your character could "make a Vahid" - it's still similar, but a little more removed.


Edit:
Side note. The setting I'm working on has at least one race that came about through Darwinian evolution (humans), and at least one that was created by a god (anfylk). The third race I'm not sure about, and the fourth race is from another plane of existence.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 24, 2015)

So long as these elements belong in the story, I won't have a problem with them. What I mean by that is as long as you don't devote more text to them than is deserved. 

If these things play an important role in the story, then great, delve into them deeply. But if they're just there for flavor, minor mention is probably enough, and if it goes beyond that, then it approaches the realm of an info dump, made worse by it being an unimportant info dump.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 24, 2015)

Steerpike said:
			
		

> The only thing that really troubles me in worlds that combine science and technology is whether the co-existence of the two is logically consistent. For example, where magic is prevalent, one has to wonder whether and how certain scientific advances would come about. That's the sort of thing I think about.



Yeah, don't worry, I've thought about this. Magic really isn't big in my world anyway, and what magic exists probably wouldn't come into conflict with many scientific principles.



			
				Penpilot said:
			
		

> So long as these elements belong in the story, I won't have a problem with them. What I mean by that is as long as you don't devote more text to them than is deserved.
> 
> If these things play an important role in the story, then great, delve into them deeply. But if they're just there for flavor, minor mention is probably enough, and if it goes beyond that, then it approaches the realm of an info dump, made worse by it being an unimportant info dump.



I'm not going into detail about them or anything. I think Od & Eulices' theory is mentioned in passing twice in the novel, and the actual specifics of evolutionary theory aren't gone into depth or anything. And the Vahidian slip is actually rather vital story point, as the MC realises something he never knew, and thus changes his mind about something. Even then, it's not like I go on for a paragraph explaining Vahid's psychological theories.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 24, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Wouldn't bother me at all.
> 
> The only thing that really troubles me in worlds that combine science and technology is whether the co-existence of the two is logically consistent. For example, where magic is prevalent, one has to wonder whether and how certain scientific advances would come about. That's the sort of thing I think about.
> 
> But basically having a kind of alternate world where well-known scientific theories were discovered by individuals unique to the fantasy world doesn't bother me in the least.



To me it's actually MORE of an immersion breaker if magic causes a world to plateau at a certain tech level for thousands of years. Given a certain population size, and a class of people in that population with the time to devote to research (Like the magic users themselves) and most tech would still be discovered. It might happen on a different time scale than our world, but it would still happen. As for reasons? Let's see, Religious, Cultural, Monetary, Individual Prejudice, War, Politics, Genetics, etc...

Look at Magic like Technology in our world. Even in the United States where it's available to every citizen we still have the Amish who refuse (for religious reasons) to use "Modern Technology".


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 24, 2015)

Hainted,

I don't think that is what steerpike is saying. Rather, ithas more to do with magic supplanting technology. Like if magic users could create portals to different locations. Likely airplanes wouldn't be needed since someone could just walk through a portal.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 25, 2015)

Oh know I'm getting what he's saying. It would be more jarring and immersion breaking to mention Darwin or Freud and most readers will not be bothered by it. I'm using a similar line of thought in my own stories, but at the same time magic wouldn't supplant all technology.

Take your portal example. What if a minority of people get violently ill from portal travel, and another percentage don't like the idea of shunting themselves through the Seeming Nothingness, and a major religion disavows the portals as blasphemous, while the dictatorship over the mountains don't like the ease of travel portals offers its citizens and another nation is looking for a new way to attack their enemies that doesn't require the portals to move troops or a better way to deliver ordinance?

Just as you can't predict all the effect that will ripple out of any change in the world you can't just say "Well, My world doesn't have [example technology] because {Magic Item} rendered it obsolete.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 25, 2015)

"Can't" is a very strong word.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm a fan of finding technologies and scientific facts and then finding out if I can port them into my world with their level of knowledge and technology. So far it's been limited to toxins, poisons, radiation and the like, stuff that I use in interrogation scenes.

However, I've for example seen a design for a special water facility somewhere. It's supposed to be built at a coastline that has daily heavy fog coming in from the sea due to climate condition there. The plan was to have cooled pillars to which the fog would be funneled. It would then condense and trickle down into a basin in the form of drinkable water.

'Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic' I don't know who said it, but when I see things like that waterplant, I immediately scribble it down somewhere because it's something I could see done with magic.

So you can have magic and technology at odds, with competing solutions to problems. Or you can have magic and technology live in separate spheres. Or you can magify your technology or technify your magic. All are valid methods, as long as internal consistency is obeyed for those elements important to the story.

I'm a personal fan of magifying science.


----------



## Noldona (Mar 25, 2015)

2WayParadox said:


> Or you can magify your technology or technify your magic.



In a story idea I have been working on fleshing out enough to start writing a novel on, I am doing exactly that. That world is a steampunk style world where alchemy exists. In this case, alchemy is based upon the more philosophical side of historical alchemy and less on the chemistry side. The symbols and such represent ideas and concepts and are combined in specific ways to form the spells. The issue is the spells are powered by the life force of the alchemist thus causing rapid aging and short lives. This issue is compounded by the fact that the nation is at war with another nation, and alchemists are very useful for that. The story will end up being a trilogy with each book as a step in the apprenticeship system. 

***Spoiler***
In the first book, the MC is an apprentice alchemist who figures out a way to augment alchemy with energy generated from steam power to power the spell and thus solve the issue of the shorten lives of alchemists.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 25, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> "Can't" is a very strong word.



Yes it is. You couldn't predict that the discovery of the process to make cheaper steel would have driven infant mortality rates down considerably.
Or maybe it should be how reading was killed by radio which was driven to extinction by movies which were wiped out with the introduction of televisions which no one owns anymore since we all have computers( which IBM said would never find any use in the average person's life)


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 25, 2015)

Hainted said:


> Yes it is. You couldn't predict that the discovery of the process to make cheaper steel would have driven infant mortality rates down considerably.
> Or maybe it should be how reading was killed by radio which was driven to extinction by movies which were wiped out with the introduction of televisions which no one owns anymore since we all have computers( which IBM said would never find any use in the average person's life)


I was actually referring to this:


Hainted said:


> you can't just say "Well, My world doesn't have [example technology] because {Magic Item} rendered it obsolete.


And I disagree. Yes, you absolutely can.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 25, 2015)

I disagree as well Hainted. There are some things that are obviously replaceable. For example if everyone could open portals and none of the negatives you said happened, clearly airplanes would not exist. They wouldn't need to. Furthermore, isn't necessity the mother of invention. Without the need there is no invention.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 26, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> There are some things that are obviously replaceable. For example if everyone could open portals and none of the negatives you said happened, clearly airplanes would not exist.



Every advancement has drawbacks, and both your counter arguments hinge on this NOT happening and completely ignore the cultural, religious, and political reasons that would prevent people from using of the Magic Whatsit. Magic will always have a cost, and their will always be people who WILL NOT pay that cost, thus creating a need for alternatives.But let's focus on need.

Mindfire has a nice country, but is well defended from invasion by portal No one has managed to successfully invade and hold the nation. Brian Scott Allen has one of his wizards approach him with the idea of lighter than air craft. Brian Scott Allen builds airships and launches a surprise blitzkrieg from the sky(since no one checks the skies, because why would they? People travel by portals!) This leads to my nation starting to develop a way to counter this by building better airships and technology to detect them. This leads to other nations developing better machines, powered by magic, to patrol the skies and others to develop machines that function without magic(One good counterspell and your magic airship engine's slag). Decade down the road? First Gyrocopter followed two years later by the biplane.

Once that happens? Well let's see. The rich will start buying them first as status symbols, then various amusement parks and traveling shows will offer rides and shows involving this new invention. Some smart forward thinking businessman will decide to break the monopoly of the Portal Shipping services and use planes for delivery, etc, etc..

You both miss the obvious, that nothing, no matter how easy, or necessary is going to be used by everyone. People will always find a reason to not use the portals(or whatever) no matter how safe they are proven to be. Look at the Anti-vaxxers, or the Homeopathic movement or Crystals for Healing when we have some of the most advanced medical care in the world. Go on reddit, or Facebook, or Twitter and find a subject you know to be good and necessary and something everyone should have access to and use and read all the arguments from people against it. Study the Edison/Tesla wars over electricity. 

Bottom Line: No matter what you introduce, or how easy it is, or how much better it would make everyone's lives, some people will always refuse to use it, and others will oppose it until their dying breath no matter how stupid their reasons seem. This will generate a need and a market for alternatives.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Mar 26, 2015)

I think you're both on the same side of the argument here. Both of you say that something will only be developed if there is a need for it.

Hainted, your example hinges on the fact that there are tactics that can make use of ingrained customs that have spawned through the use of a certain technology. There is no need to state that that tactical space would be filled by a form of technology though, that is just one of the possibilities, and in a magical society I think it more likely that a magical solution is found, unless the technical challenges are just to great. (i.e. the terrible cold when flying at high altitude, plus the distances that need to be overcome and the needed ability to inflict damge on ground targets) There is also no need for the countersolution to be technical. It could be magical.

In the end, it all depends on the decision the writer makes. If the writer decides that nobody thinks of an alternative to portals, then nobody those, and screw the possibilities. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 26, 2015)

Hainted said:


> You both miss the obvious, that nothing, no matter how easy, or necessary is going to be used by everyone.



Says _who?_ Does not the author control the world and not vice versa? There is nothing that dictates that every world must inevitably evolve along the same path as ours, or a even a remotely similar one, in spite of all differences in geography, culture, religion, and the presence of magic. You seem to be operating from an almost 19th/early 20th century paradigm: that "progress" is inevitable and inherently good. (It's the similar to the thinking you see in some who malign the fantasy genre for portraying what they consider to be stagnant, unenlightened societies and simplistic moral landscapes. But that's a topic for another thread.) But I think this betrays a cultural bias. It ignores that different cultures can and do value different things. And simply put, if a culture doesn't value technology for whatever reason, they won't develop it. Suppose that everyone _is_, in fact, willing and content to stick with the portal system they've been using for generations? You keep saying that rejection of the magical apparatus is inevitable and thus will lead to technological alternatives, but you have not and cannot show that to actually be the case. Because, the fantasy world is controlled by the author and they can do as they please. You can accept a world where magic exists, but your suspension of disbelief is broken by a world in which technology does _not_? That seems rather arbitrary.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 26, 2015)

1. Yes the author controls the world, not vice versa, but the author also draws from real life and NOTHING has ever been invented or discovered that everyone agrees on. To say that there is ignores a fundamental part of Humanity by stifling our independence, and destroying our creativity.

2. Says WHO? I posted some real life examples of things that should be universally used and agreed upon IRL, but still aren't as well as reasons why it's like that.

3. It's not a bias, nor is it arbitrary. All worlds, civilizations, nations, families, and individuals will change over time. New methods of doing things will replace old, new ways of thinking will shift societal mores, and just plain curiosity will expand knowledge and lead to more new things and new ways of thinking.

4. You gotta quit putting words in my mouth. I never said magic would supplant technology. I said that despite the presence of magic, technology would still exist. Again, Human Nature.

5. Is the 19th century paradigm thing supposed to be an insult? That period led to unbelievable leaps forward in technology, science,and medicine. Entire civilizations rose and fell and the face of the world changed forever. The aftershocks of that time, and the attitude that we could conquer any problem, that rose out of that period gave us everything from the Civil Rights Movement to the Moon Landing and beyond. How could anyone be AGAINST PROGRESS?!

6. Even in a fictional society with magic, the magic itself( or rather the working of it) would change over time as better, more efficient methods for enchanting, summoning, etc... would be explored and refinement of potion ingredients ( and an agency to enforce the purity of those potions and ingredients) would rise. 

7. "It ignores that different cultures can and do value different things." Exactly. You can't find one, ONE, example of something that is universally  built, used, and studied the same way in every culture. There's always differences and things considered common and necessary in one society is wasteful and unused in another. Glad to see you realize my point finally.

8. Oh and 2wayparadox, It was just one possibility of how the situation could play out. I was taking the crossbowman versus knight tactic. There may be a magical method, probably is, but we're talking technology and science in a magic setting so that's why I used it.

9. and it's not immersion breaking in general, just past a certain point it becomes ridiculous to assume some things haven't been invented/discovered yet, even in a fantasy setting. If you have a 10/20/30 thousand year history and your magic users know what potion is made from mermaid scales, manticore tears, and orc brains under the 2nd full moon in the fourth month of the second year of an even numbered century that begins with Y, but NO ONE knows what the right mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter will produce? Yeah, I'm checking out.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 26, 2015)

On point five, you also ignore the negatives made possible by progress.  This era also saw the advent of industrialized warfare, with the increased casualties and devastation made possible by progress.  It saw poison gas, the machine gun, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons.  It saw the rise of ideologies that demanded unrelenting progress towards a "better world", under the assumption that new was always better than the old.  It's not.  That isn't to say that it's always negative, either.  It is based entirely on what sort of progress it is.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 26, 2015)

Now, allow me to reply.



Hainted said:


> 1. Yes the author controls the world, not vice versa, but the author also draws from real life and NOTHING has ever been invented or discovered that everyone agrees on. To say that there is ignores a fundamental part of Humanity by stifling our independence, and destroying our creativity.


The author draws from real life, but is not bound by it. Not in this genre, anyway. Also, how exactly is creating a world that developed along radically different lines than our own "stifling humanity's creativity and independence"? Seems like a bit of a logical leap to me.




> 2. Says WHO? I posted some real life examples of things that should be universally used and agreed upon IRL, but still aren't as well as reasons why it's like that.


And yet you have neglected to explain why things must necessarily be the same in a fantasy universe. That's the part I'm calling into question. No one denies that people disagree with good ideas for petty reasons in our world. What's being disputed is this claim that people in a different reality must think in ways identical to people in ours.



> 3. It's not a bias, nor is it arbitrary. All worlds, civilizations, nations, families, and individuals will change over time. New methods of doing things will replace old, new ways of thinking will shift societal mores, and just plain curiosity will expand knowledge and lead to more new things and new ways of thinking.


Not necessarily. Suppose a given society values tradition more than change? Or has some kind of inherent cultural mechanism that moderates or prevents grand change from happening? Suppose that due to the set of values a given culture has, new ideas do not propagate because they are considered to solely belong to their originator? There are many, _many_ what ifs that an author could explore that would result in societies that operate on principles contradictory to the ones you say are inevitable.



> 4. You gotta quit putting words in my mouth. I never said magic would supplant technology. I said that despite the presence of magic, technology would still exist. Again, Human Nature.


Are you sure? Even so, I disagree. The entire point of fantasy is that an author can do whatever they wish so long as they're internally consistent. There are no rules except the ones you make for yourself. It's why I write fantasy instead of sci-fi. 



> 5. Is the 19th century paradigm thing supposed to be an insult? That period led to unbelievable leaps forward in technology, science,and medicine. Entire civilizations rose and fell and the face of the world changed forever. The aftershocks of that time, and the attitude that we could conquer any problem, that rose out of that period gave us everything from the Civil Rights Movement to the Moon Landing and beyond. How could anyone be AGAINST PROGRESS?!


It was also the era of imperialism. The leaps forward you praise were funded by riches plundered from "less enlightened" lands and built on the backs of slaves. The same ideal of "progress" you credit with laying the foundation for the Civil Rights Movement also laid the foundations for the conditions that made it necessary. "Progress" was the rallying cry of those who massacred the Native Americans, stole their land, and refused to honor treaties with them because they were thought too dumb to use their land "properly". "Progress" is what the Europeans said when they did their darndest to utterly erase African culture in the name of "civilization". "Progress" is destroying rainforests to create more grazing land for cattle. "Progress" is what blackened the sky with pollution and brought about global climate change. "Progress" is social Darwinism and scientific racism. "Progress" is children in coal mines and working in Victorian factories. "Progress" laid the foundations for what was perhaps the bloodiest century on record. Because that's the thing about progress. Like everything created by humanity, it's not all good all the time. Whether progress is uplifting or terrible depends on what you're progressing towards. In the present day we recognize Victorian notions of progress for what they are: naive at best, imperialistic at worst. That's why I say your perspective has a cultural bias. In your case this cultural bias is relatively benign, in other cases not so much. But regardless, if you recognize that there is a bias, these inevitable conclusions don't seem so inevitable anymore. I'm not "against progress" per se. But I often look askance at the values of those who champion it above all else.



> 6. Even in a fictional society with magic, the magic itself( or rather the working of it) would change over time as better, more efficient methods for enchanting, summoning, etc... would be explored and refinement of potion ingredients ( and an agency to enforce the purity of those potions and ingredients) would rise.


Okay, I don't necessarily agree with your intended implications, but you seem to actually be undermining your own point. If magic itself is so infinitely adaptable (not a necessary condition, but one I think can be very helpful to a writer), then why are technological alternatives to it inevitable and necessary exactly? Even if we allow for the possibility of people not wanting to use it, that does not necessarily imply that they would find technological alternatives. In a world where magic is ubiquitous, technology itself as we understand it might be inconceivable. It would be like someone in our world trying to invent an alternative to the internet. We've lived with the internet for so long and it's become so embedded in our society that while living without it might be doable, conceiving of something that serves the exact same purpose, but uses none of the same components or processes is nigh impossible. Even trying to imagine such a thing is difficult.



> 7. "It ignores that different cultures can and do value different things." Exactly. You can't find one, ONE, example of something that is universally  built, used, and studied the same way in every culture. There's always differences and things considered common and necessary in one society is wasteful and unused in another. Glad to see you realize my point finally.


And I think you completely missed what I was saying. Simply put, development of technology relies on having a society that values technology. If your society does not value technology, no technology will develop. In a society that values tradition more than innovation, likewise new ideas will not be forthcoming. Whether such a society is ideal or the most interesting possibility to explore is not at issue. The point is that an author can create such a society and can produce plausible in-universe reasons why it exists. And that's okay.



> 9. and it's not immersion breaking in general, just past a certain point it becomes ridiculous to assume some things haven't been invented/discovered yet, even in a fantasy setting. If you have a 10/20/30 thousand year history and your magic users know what potion is made from mermaid scales, manticore tears, and orc brains under the 2nd full moon in the fourth month of the second year of an even numbered century that begins with Y, but NO ONE knows what the right mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter will produce? Yeah, I'm checking out.


Okay but... what if sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter don't even exist? You seem to be making so many assumptions about what must be. I'm trying to get you to see that in the fantasy genre, none of those assumptions are absolute. You say not all people think alike. I agree. And that means not every writer approaches their universe with these same assumptions, and not every universe must operate by the rules that you seem to have arbitrarily decided it must. Unless I have missed something particularly obvious (which happens from time to time) your argument is an ouroboros.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 26, 2015)

Tradition is slavery. Tradition is wife beating. Tradition is what flies a plane into a skyscraper. Tradition is what led to the Dark Ages. Tradition fed the crusades. Mindless adherence to what the masses want without question led to the gladiatorial games of Rome. Blind obedience and the stifling of opposing views led to a Holocaust. 

Traditions need to be tested, and if they're worthy they endure.

Stories are driven by conflict and change. If everyone agrees and nothing changes why write it?

As for why should things be the same? Your sky is blue, your swords are steel, and your people look like you and I. Why would I automatically know your world doesn't have the ingredients of gunpowder? Why would I assume your humans don't act like the ones I see and interact with everyday?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 27, 2015)

Hainted said:


> Tradition is slavery. Tradition is wife beating. Tradition is what flies a plane into a skyscraper. Tradition is what led to the Dark Ages. Tradition fed the crusades. Mindless adherence to what the masses want without question led to the gladiatorial games of Rome. Blind obedience and the stifling of opposing views led to a Holocaust.


 Yes. You also left out the Soviet Union, the Spanish Inquisition, and North Korea. But this argument rests on a false equivalence. I never said tradition was inherently good. Only that progress is not inherently good. Most things can be good or bad depending on context. My point has never been that tradition is good and change is bad. My point is that your conclusions specifically are influenced by social factors and biases that you don't seem to be aware of, and that they're preventing you from considering possibilities beyond what you have arbitrarily deemed acceptable. You are completely missing that point.



Hainted said:


> Stories are driven by conflict and change. If everyone agrees and nothing changes why write it?


A society that doesn't pursue technology is automatically conflict free both within and without? Who said this? I didn't.



Hainted said:


> As for why should things be the same? Your sky is blue, your swords are steel, and your people look like you and I. Why would I automatically know your world doesn't have the ingredients of gunpowder? Why would I assume your humans don't act like the ones I see and interact with everyday?


Actually, now that you mention it, there is a sword that figures prominently in my mythos which is actually made of glass. And one area of the world has a greenish sky with a blue-green sun. It's going to be a rather important plot point. And no, you can't know if my world has the ingredients for gunpowder. You can't assume either way. In fantasy there are no rules except those the author makes for themselves. That's my point. That's my only point. And I've said it like five different ways by now. There is nothing that "must" be in a fantasy world. The author can do anything they want provided that it's clearly explained, earned, and internally consistent.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 27, 2015)

But what facilitated the mass deaths of the holocaust and WWII? Scientific progress. Eugenics, poison gas, and industrialization of murder created the atrocities of the holocaust. 

Further, if a world looks like Brandin Sanderson's Roshar or Scadrial why dhould you assume there was saltpeter or anything earth like. Sure steel is there but then they also have swords on Roshar made of...other things. I think it's better to assume nothing.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 27, 2015)

Hainted said:


> Tradition is slavery. Tradition is wife beating. Tradition is what flies a plane into a skyscraper. Tradition is what led to the Dark Ages. Tradition fed the crusades. Mindless adherence to what the masses want without question led to the gladiatorial games of Rome. Blind obedience and the stifling of opposing views led to a Holocaust.
> 
> Traditions need to be tested, and if they're worthy they endure.
> 
> ...



Progress is just as responsible for many of those things, if not more.  

Are your swords, steel, though?  Is your sky blue?  And maybe not all of your people look like normal humans.  This is fantasy we are discussing, after all.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 27, 2015)

My argument doesn't rest on false equivalence I was responding in an identical manner using "Tradition" the way you used "Progress" Check the mirror and the dictionary before trying to make yourself sound more intelligent than me.

I have never said that my way is the only way. 2wayparadox got that why don't you.(Oh yea, your probably not reading the whole post. Got it.)

And I never said that a society that doesn't pursue technology is automatically conflict free and without change. This is your second and final warning about putting words in my mouth. Do it again and I'm reporting it. You have made statements that your world is full of people who don't question traditions and just roll with whatever magic whatsit without ever considering the downsides(because it's perfect and there are none) or ever having base human reactions to this magic such as fear( because absolutely no one ever would feel this way because _reasons_)

Your audience however are people of this world, and my assumptions are not unique nor have I said they are the only path an author can take(again you're not reading my posts, obviously, and making assumptions of your own). Readers are going to make assumptions you may not like or have even considered about your works based on their own experiences and the world we live in. Ignore that at your own peril.

 And for someone accusing me of saying Fantasy "must" be a certain way you sure seem vehemently(see, I know Thesaurus.com too) opposed to my interpretation of it as being incorrect since it doesn't match yours. Again, remove the log from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in mine.

"My point is that your conclusions specifically are influenced by social factors and biases that you don't seem to be aware of, and that they're preventing you from considering possibilities beyond what you have arbitrarily deemed acceptable. You are completely missing that point." Once more, Check yoself before you wreck yoself! Word to your mutha!

I'm just floored by the incredible bias against scientific progress on this site. I mean I would expect it from some SJW on social media sitting in Starbucks using the free WiFi to update their anti-corporation/anti-vax site but seriously, here?


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 27, 2015)

Hainted said:


> My argument doesn't rest on false equivalence I was responding in an identical manner using "Tradition" the way you used "Progress" Check the mirror and the dictionary before trying to make yourself sound more intelligent than me.
> 
> I have never said that my way is the only way. 2wayparadox got that why don't you.(Oh yea, your probably not reading the whole post. Got it.)
> 
> ...



No one is saying scientific progress is bad.  But to pretend it is always good and perfect is naive at best.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2015)

Hey guys, please find a way to express disagreement without insults, name-calling, and the like. Thank you.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 27, 2015)

Hainted said:


> My argument doesn't rest on false equivalence I was responding in an identical manner using "Tradition" the way you used "Progress" Check the mirror and the dictionary before trying to make yourself sound more intelligent than me.


If you don't see the false equivalence in your argument, I fear you have missed the entire point of my rhetorical hat trick. You implied, if not outright stated, that progress is inherently good. ("Who could be against progress?") My statement was a list of examples of just why someone could be reasonably see progress as not being always fine and dandy. For you to respond in an identical manner makes no rhetorical sense unless you are calling into question an equal and opposite assertion (that tradition, which I suppose we're holding as the opposite force to progress, is inherently good)- an assertion that I never actually made. And granted, in retrospect I was a little condescending and carried my examples on longer than necessary. I'll cop to that. But as condescending as I may have been, you are truly going the extra mile. 



Hainted said:


> I have never said that my way is the only way. 2wayparadox got that why don't you.(Oh yea, your probably not reading the whole post. Got it.)


Well of course you didn't say it. But your refusal to acknowledge my point, that societies can have different values and develop (or not develop) differently than our own, somewhat implies it. (My sig is "Inter Lineas Legite" for a reason. )



Hainted said:


> And I never said that a society that doesn't pursue technology is automatically conflict free and without change. This is your second and final warning about putting words in my mouth. Do it again and I'm reporting it. You have made statements that your world is full of people who don't question traditions and just roll with whatever magic whatsit without ever considering the downsides(because it's perfect and there are none) or ever having base human reactions to this magic such as fear( because absolutely no one ever would feel this way because _reasons_)


Actually... no, I haven't. I have told you precisely two things about my world: that it contains one sword made of glass and a region where the sun is blue. Everything else has been a pure hypothetical meant to illustrate _possibilities_ and show that nothing can be taken for granted. That's all. Sorry if that wasn't clear.  



Hainted said:


> Your audience however are people of this world, and my assumptions are not unique nor have I said they are the only path an author can take(again you're not reading my posts, obviously, and making assumptions of your own). Readers are going to make assumptions you may not like or have even considered about your works based on their own experiences and the world we live in. Ignore that at your own peril.


You may not have said they're the only path an author _can_ take, but you've come pretty close to saying that it's the one the author _should_ take, the best one. And of course the reader will have assumptions. But because of the nature of the genre, most readers come prepared to set those assumptions aside if the story requires it and gives them good reason to. This is why I say the author can do anything they want, _provided that it's clearly explained, earned, and internally consistent._



Hainted said:


> And for someone accusing me of saying Fantasy "must" be a certain way you sure seem vehemently(see, I know Thesaurus.com too) opposed to my interpretation of it as being incorrect since it doesn't match yours. Again, remove the log from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in mine.


Now you're just getting venomous. And I'm not saying your way is incorrect. Just that there are other options that authors are free to explore. The accusation of hypocrisy doesn't quite stand up here. And just to be sure, I re-read everything I previously posted in this thread looking for any sign of hostility. Besides that that somewhat condescending rhetorical exercise, I found nothing. No doubt others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've done my best to be quite civil up to now and I think I've succeeded. You on the other hand...



Hainted said:


> "My point is that your conclusions specifically are influenced by social factors and biases that you don't seem to be aware of, and that they're preventing you from considering possibilities beyond what you have arbitrarily deemed acceptable. You are completely missing that point." Once more, Check yoself before you wreck yoself! Word to your mutha!


What is this? I know this is supposed to be a "gotcha" moment, but I'm not sure how exactly. It just comes off as petty and juvenile.



Hainted said:


> I'm just floored by the incredible bias against scientific progress on this site. I mean I would expect it from some SJW on social media sitting in Starbucks using the free WiFi to update their anti-corporation/anti-vax site but seriously, here?


Okay, the fact that you read all the comments here as anti-science and you conflate that with being anti-corporate and an "SJW" (ironic since you brought up the Civil Rights Movement in defense of your position) tells me that I need to reiterate my point about scientific progress. Here's the thing. I am not anti-science or against scientific progress. I like my car, and my internet access, and my smartphone very much thank you, and would prefer not to live without them. No one is denying that science has given us awesome things. I have a degree in engineering for God's sake. My point about progress bringing bad along with the good was intended to be only a small part of a larger point. It was never meant to mushroom like this. But the reason I have challenged your love of progress is not that I am against progress itself, but rather because I (and others apparently) recognize that the attitude you have towards it has the potential to be harmful, and I'm trying to make you aware of that. I am somewhat more sensitive to this issue now than I might have been, let's say, two years ago. But I decided to take an African Studies class in college and it challenged me to look at things in a new light. I'm trying to get you to see that the same attitude that declares progress to be supremely good is the same attitude that results in the maltreatment of people you don't think have "advanced" enough, all in the name of "helping" them. That's why I brought up imperialism. If you believe that progress is inherently good, then a belief that "advanced" societies are simply superior to "primitive" societies is a logical, maybe even inevitable progression. And from there, it's an alarmingly small leap to say that "civilized" people are superior to "savages". And history tells us what happens after that. _That_ is cultural bias. And it's dangerous. It's also my main villain's entire motivation, so that may be why I'm touchy about it.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 27, 2015)

As a historian, I instinctively recoil from the word progress. It's a politicized word, useful in moral and political debates but counter-productive when discussing history.

Try substituting the word "change" for "progress" and see if you folks still disagree as much as you thought you did (leaving aside the injured feelings, of course).


----------



## Hainted (Mar 28, 2015)

Alright we're way off topic so let's try to get back on track. And per skip.knox's suggestion use the word change.

To sell the big lies you have to center them on a little bit of truth. In Fantasy to get people to explore your world(The Big Lie) you need to give them something familiar to hold on to(The Little Truth) You can avoid doing this, but it makes for a tougher sell in my opinion.

A society that plateaus for thousands of years because _MAGIC_ is an immersion breaker for me. There would be change at all levels. It might not be massive catastrophic change, but it would be change. Improvements in farming techniques, development of better weapons(even if they're still swords and bows they're better quality swords and bows), new ways of preparing foods, new social outlooks, etc... Add in trade with foreign nations and/or non-human races and the current Kingdom of Fantasy would not be the exact same Kingdom of Fantasy of 50, 100, 1000 years ago. This isn't even taking into account wars, coup attempts, plagues, natural disasters and other factors. Again you CAN just hand wave away and say "It's always been like this", but I don't think it's a good idea. (and since I don't want to repeat myself I'll make my other point before explaining why it's not)

Now tech in a magic based world? Someone will think of it. We conceive of magic and magic techniques in a technologically based society so, in my opinion, the inverse would hold true. It might not get beyond a sketch, like DaVinci's tank or helicopter, or it might just be proof of concept, like Hero's Steam Engine, but someone will think of it. Again you could just hand wave it away since it's not Earth, but I wouldn't.

In fact let's take a look at alternate development using Magic. In my WIP there are Golems. Golems have been around for a couple thousand years and have had a huge impact on the world. Because the first ones were very simple, but could be taught to perform repetitive tasks the assembly line, and mass production came to my world centuries before ours. And as the years rolled by Golems became more refined, more complex as builders refined the process of building them with new materials, new methods of construction, and trade with foreign cultures and discovery of their techniques. The Golem still performs mindless repetitive tasks in factories, but they also work in hazardous jobs, as mascots in parks and sports stadiums, waiters, valets, PAs, stuntpeople, and even the sex industry. They've gotten so advanced there's a small movement to have them declared sophonts alongside the other intelligent races of the world.

But that's not the only attitude people have towards them, nor should it be. The biggest opposition to Golems come from labor unions who see them as taking jobs from able bodied people. Then there are the church groups who see them as blasphemous mockeries of the gods' work. There are those who see them as just tools, no different than a wrench or hammer. The builders and customizers who see them as art and constantly push the boundaries of what they can do. The hate groups that see them as a threat to life and the extremists who destroy every Golem they find. Some people see them as friends, companions, lovers and one character has proposed to his and others see them as yet one more thing to dominate, and something that won't fight back. And finally there's the Tech industry(since my world has advanced to the point it's technologically close to ours) who see them as competition for their new "robots". 

Now I could just say that the Golem was created the way it is now since the beginning. I could make everyone just hold hands and love Golems and accept them. I could, but I won't.

A society that doesn't change, dies. A technology that never evolves or gets better, goes obsolete. Nothing has ever been introduced in the world that everyone has the same opinion on. These are all the touchstones that my readers will use(The Little Truth) to sell a world of magic and Golems(The Big Lie). To handwave all that away is to rob my setting of life and real people. It's shallow, and asking readers to make an even larger suspension of disbelief than they are coming in. A lot of people won't make that leap so I'm shrinking my potential audience. Most importantly it's limiting the stories I can tell in that world, robbing myself of places to go and things to do, and why would I do that?

You can write whatever you want, and there's going to be an audience for it, but I'd rather expand my options and give myself the most tools to play with.


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 28, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> There is nothing that "must" be in a fantasy world. The author can do anything they want provided that it's clearly explained, earned, and internally consistent.



That's absolutely true - a fantasy can do anything.
My bug bear (and it's not aimed at anyone) is that too often fantasy is used as an excuse for not thinking through something completely. Some writers will wave their hands in the air and say something like 'its fantasy - anything goes' - and indeed it can - but those stories and writers I find a real turn off. To be interesting (at least to me) a story needs an internal logic - it needs me to trust that the author knows enough about their world that they won't leave me finding inconsistencies that grate against logic. 

Magic is just a word for a technology you don't understand. It's a catchall. Whether that technology is powered by the mind, an invented force, an innate ability, a 'mana' resource, a way of bending space or mathematics - or whatever - if it's understood and can be improved or adapted it's technology (or at least a form of technology - you might not like the word). 

Others might not agree - but anything goes magic normally leaves me totally cold.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Terry Greer said:


> That's absolutely true - a fantasy can do anything.
> My bug bear (and it's not aimed at anyone) is that too often fantasy is used as an excuse for not thinking through something completely. Some writers will wave their hands in the air and say something like 'its fantasy - anything goes' - and indeed it can - but those stories and writers I find a real turn off. To be interesting (at least to me) a story needs an internal logic - it needs me to trust that the author knows enough about their world that they won't leave me finding inconsistencies that grate against logic.
> 
> Magic is just a word for a technology you don't understand. It's a catchall. Whether that technology is powered by the mind, an invented force, an innate ability, a 'mana' resource, a way of bending space or mathematics - or whatever - if it's understood and can be improved or adapted it's technology (or at least a form of technology - you might not like the word).
> ...



And here is where we might have some semantic issues. Part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of the word "magic" is that it can mean lots of different things depending on context and point of reference. So when you say "magic is technology", I have to wonder, is it really? Because I think it depends on the variety of magic you're using. Now, if you're in a world like that of D&D or a universe that operates on a similar logic, where magic spells, counterspells, charms, etc. have specified limits, effects, prep time, or what have you, then yes. One could reasonably say that this kind of magic is just a kind of science that follows different rules from normal science even if those rules aren't always clear to the characters or audience. Even in a world like the one Avatar: The Last Airbender is set in you could say that bending is a kind of technology. It literally is in some cases. Codex Alera, one of my favorite book series, also takes a similar approach. But there's a whole lot of worlds where magic doesn't operate this way: Middle-Earth, Narnia, and Earthsea in particular come to mind, and those are masterpieces. (Though I have less affection for the last two Earthsea books than I do for the first three.) So I both agree and disagree with your opinion. An author should always think through the implications of their magic. But having "anything goes" magic doesn't necessarily mean the author hasn't thought things through. Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin are evidence of that. I lean more towards magic as being spiritual or supernatural than scientific personally. I find it more interesting if magic is a divine gift rather than just something that just exists to be exploited.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 28, 2015)

I think certain posters here are confusing "scientific progress" with technological developments. Technology can definitely help science (e.g. telescopes for astronomers), but science itself is more like a process of observing and testing things to make inferences. No culture has ever had a monopoly on that everyday thought pattern. Those prehistoric Africans who first figured how heating shiny rocks could make iron for tools were doing science in their heads, even if they didn't have all the funky gadgetry we moderns have since accumulated. Just because certain cultures have inherited more widgets over time doesn't mean they're more scientific, it just means their scientists have been given more toys to play with.

(And besides, it's only been within the last 500 years that Northern Europeans were able to conquer the world, with the help of Chinese gunpowder and incomplete hygiene of course. Somehow I question whether my Anglo-Saxon ancestors could have pulled all that off if they hadn't bumped into those tan-skinned legionaries from across the Alps, who in turn borrowed quite a bit of their culture from older black and brown empires in Africa and the Fertile Crescent. Be sure to share that with all those scruffy-necked "defenders of Western civilization" on Youtube.)

Nor is anti-science an attitude exclusive to left-wing "SJWs". Anti-vaxxers and fat-acceptance pseudo-feminists may not appreciate medical science all that much, but then climatology doesn't sit well with right-wing corporatists either, nor do racialists care much for any form of anthropology (even if they quote certain findings out of context to rationalize their chest-thumping xenophobia). Science has a way of unraveling realities conflicting with people's preconceived beliefs regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Actually, I think anti-vaxxers are predominantly right-wing or libertarians. But you make a compelling point.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

The problem with the "magic = technology" thing, in my opinion, is that it doesn't clarify anything. Because most people don't really understand what "technology" really is any more than magic. In this day and age most people tend to equate technology with machines or devices or with our modern exploitation of natural forces such as electricity. 

But if you look at the root of the word, "techne", it is Greek for "art, skill, cunning of hand". And of course logy is a reference to knowledge and study. As a philosophical term, "techne" refers to knowledge that is used for making and doing as opposed to just understanding. This has the potential to encompass a lot more (and for the Greeks it extended to everything from medicine to music). For instance, it describes the "magic" of Tolkien's Elves pretty well, at least the Noldorin Elves who were known for their craftsmanship. 

I would not go so far as to claim that ALL magic is technology, however. I believe there are many varieties of imagined power that do not fall within this definition. For instance, "magic" that calls upon other supernatural beings (from demons to angels and anything in between) to gain power could not be likened to technology, which requires that the user is doing the work himself. Any magic that does not involve knowledge of the principles used in the making/doing probably doesn't fit either. And of course if there's magic that doesn't involve making/doing at all, that would not be technology.

Still, I think that a lot of the fantasy that has been written in the last century uses "magic" that already falls within the realm of "technology".


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> The problem with the "magic = technology" thing, in my opinion, is that it doesn't clarify anything. Because most people don't really understand what "technology" really is any more than magic. In this day and age most people tend to equate technology with machines or devices or with our modern exploitation of natural forces such as electricity.
> 
> But if you look at the root of the word, "techne", it is Greek for "art, skill, cunning of hand". And of course logy is a reference to knowledge and study. As a philosophical term, "techne" refers to knowledge that is used for making and doing as opposed to just understanding. This has the potential to encompass a lot more (and for the Greeks it extended to everything from medicine to music). For instance, it describes the "magic" of Tolkien's Elves pretty well, at least the Noldorin Elves who were known for their craftsmanship.



Well when you put it that way, I suppose more of my magic is "technology" than I originally thought. Although, given the word's modern connotations, perhaps technology's sister word, "technique", might be more appropriate to capture the original meaning of the Greek root? Thanks for that tidbit btw. Etymology is fascinating.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 28, 2015)

I'm uncomfortable referring to the magic in my setting as a kind of technology - though I guess in a sense it may very well be seen as it. Calling it technology just doesn't _feel_ right. 
There's definitely a science to it though. There are rules for how magic can be worked, and experiments can be performed successfully under the same conditions with the same outcome. There's no theoretical limit to what can be done with magic, but with advanced enough magic the mind of the caster becomes the limit. They have to understand in some way what they're doing - or they won't be able to do it.


---

Unrelated
Someone touched upon this already and I'm sure the quote has been mention (I didn't check):


> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



We can see some really good examples of this in the real world today when it comes to online security. A lot of people don't understand it, but they know it exists. In a way, it's like they view hackers and computer viruses in the same way people viewed witches and curses back in the day. It's something strange and mysterious they don't understand and which can take the blame for bad fortune.
Another parallel goes to the early medicine and hygiene. People would wear their magic medallions and say their magic words, but they wouldn't wash their hands before the meal. In the same way, people today install anti-virus software, but they still click on links from strangers who promise fame and fortune etc.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 28, 2015)

To me the biggest problem with Magic versus Technology isn't telling one from the other it's that one evolves over time and the other doesn't.  Spellcasters use the same techniques to produce the same results without variation year after year, century after century, usually weaker than their predecessors, and anytime something new is added it's usually from reading some ancient manuscript or finding some "lost" knowledge.(i.e. Conjure Hurricane>Conjure Thunderstorm>Conjure Tornado>Throw Lightning>Shocking Touch> scuffing your feet on the carpet)  Technology on the other hand is usually seen as improving and growing in power(sling>slingstaff>bow>longbow>crossbow>flintlock)

I feel that if it was around long enough magic would be another science and we would see it evolve along more sophisticated paths(except the hippies who would insist on doing it the old way "because it's purer" and "more in tune with what magic is really about")

As far as magic being a divine gift, I have problems with that. Divine power should be able to achieve things magic can't and is more in working an extra-dimensional beings will on the world than your own so it would be...? I don't want to say unreliable, but it's more about convincing another person that what you want and they want is the same and they should do all the work. Divine power should extract a cost like magic as well. Something like, "Your cured of the galloping trots, now stand in front of the temple and read this Litany of the Blessed for the next 4 hours. Your business was successful? 20% of your profits for a year go to these charities. That gentleman that survived the ambush? Send him across town to kill the priestess of our god's enemy."


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Hainted said:


> To me the biggest problem with Magic versus Technology isn't telling one from the other it's that one evolves over time and the other doesn't.  Spellcasters use the same techniques to produce the same results without variation year after year, century after century, usually weaker than their predecessors, and anytime something new is added it's usually from reading some ancient manuscript or finding some "lost" knowledge.(i.e. Conjure Hurricane>Conjure Thunderstorm>Conjure Tornado>Throw Lightning>Shocking Touch> scuffing your feet on the carpet)  Technology on the other hand is usually seen as improving and growing in power(sling>slingstaff>bow>longbow>crossbow>flintlock)
> 
> I feel that if it was around long enough magic would be another science and we would see it evolve along more sophisticated paths(except the hippies who would insist on doing it the old way "because it's purer" and "more in tune with what magic is really about")



I think what you're complaining about has its origins in Tolkien, where magic is fading from the world and much of the old power and lore of both Numenor and the elves has been lost. The elves are diminishing, their era is ending and the era of Man is beginning. But this has roots in Tolkien's own worldview. It was a reflection of how he felt after witnessing the horrors of mechanized warfare in WWI. After seeing your buddies die in poison gas and machine gun fire, you'd probably think the magic and innocence of the world was dying too. And what's happened is perhaps that a lot of writers came after him and did the same thing without realizing why he did it. You could also say the idea is an echo of the Fall narrative in Christianity and other religions: that we used to be greater but screwed it up and our race has declined in some ways while advancing in others. Another thing to consider is that humans have a natural curiosity about the past. We're fascinated by the empires and civilizations that came before us. We really do discover "lost knowledge from the ancients" all the time through archaeology. In some cases the ancient world had knowledge that wasn't rediscovered until the renaissance. We marvel at the things they built without the aid of modern machines and we start to wonder if maybe they really were greater than us in some way for not having the conveniences we have. If living without such things made them stronger or wiser. It's sort of nostalgia on a grander scale. This even shows up in the Iliad where (IIRC) an old man remarks that Agamemnon and his warriors are like children compared to the grand old days of Jason and the Argonauts. But sometimes the past serves as a cautionary tale instead. Another popular trope is that of the ancient civilization that discovers great power, but then makes a blunder and destroys itself. The message there is clear: learn from their mistakes. Do better.




Hainted said:


> As far as magic being a divine gift, I have problems with that. Divine power should be able to achieve things magic can't and is more in working an extra-dimensional beings will on the world than your own so it would be...? I don't want to say unreliable, but it's more about convincing another person that what you want and they want is the same and they should do all the work. Divine power should extract a cost like magic as well. Something like, "Your cured of the galloping trots, now stand in front of the temple and read this Litany of the Blessed for the next 4 hours. Your business was successful? 20% of your profits for a year go to these charities. That gentleman that survived the ambush? Send him across town to kill the priestess of our god's enemy."


I think you misunderstood what I meant by divine gift. It's closer to what we might call talent: a person is born with a head for math, or artistic ability, or natural athleticism, and then practices over the course of their life to improve that skill. Likewise with magic, though in my universe a person will inherit different magic skills depending on what magic is bound to their ancestral and cultural heritage. (Though there are special instances where entirely new magic skills are given to someone because the situation requires it or as a sign of favor.) The "divine" part is in reference to the talent's origin, an echo of the biblical concept that people are given their abilities for a reason, to fulfill a purpose, even though they have free will with regard to their use. Now, whether a divine gift necessitates a quid-pro-quo agreement depends on the god, I'd say. If you're dealing with a god in the old pagan sense, where you have to fulfill X requirements to keep the god happy or else thunderbolts, then that sort of agreement makes sense. Likewise for Faustian pacts. But if your god is more the loving, father-like type who wants obedience out of love rather than contractual obligation, then that sort of arrangement doesn't fit.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 28, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I think you misunderstood what I meant by divine gift. It's closer to what we might call talent: a person is born with a head for math, or artistic ability, or natural athleticism, and then practices over the course of their life to improve that skill. Likewise with magic, though in my universe a person will inherit different magic skills depending on what magic is bound to their ancestral and cultural heritage. (Though there are special instances where entirely new magic skills are given to someone because the situation requires it or as a sign of favor.) The "divine" part is in reference to the talent's origin, an echo of the biblical concept that people are given their abilities for a reason, to fulfill a purpose, even though they have free will with regard to their use. Now, whether a divine gift necessitates a quid-pro-quo agreement depends on the god, I'd say. If you're dealing with a god in the old pagan sense, where you have to fulfill X requirements to keep the god happy or else thunderbolts, then that sort of agreement makes sense. Likewise for Faustian pacts. But if your god is more the loving, father-like type who wants obedience out of love rather than contractual obligation, then that sort of arrangement doesn't fit.



Ahhh, got it. I'm similar in mindset but with some key differences. Magic in my world is a skill, any differences in magic casting are do to cultural differences and bias. Using real world examples a wizard from America, India, and China can all throw a gout of fire but the look, the motions, and words of each spell are completely different even if they are mechanically identical. It's loosely based on martial arts and the many different styles of fighting. How many different ways can you really throw a punch?

It also sets up the idea that ANYONE could be a wizard as the idea that it's only certain families or individuals who gain magic ability smacks of elitism to me. It's like the old saying "Everyone can PLAY basketball, but there's only one Michael Jordan." A person is limited in magic only by the amount of time and effort they put into it. (Though some may have a more natural aptitude then others.)

And my gods are more the wheeling dealing type, though they are a little free with granting miracles. I mean they have to be, could you imagine the difficulty churches in our world would have gaining members if magic existed? "Jesus turned water into wine  two thousand years ago,my son." "Nice but my neighbor turned my mailbox into Lucy Liu for me last week, so...."


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Hainted said:


> The idea that it's only certain families or individuals who gain magic ability smacks of elitism to me.



Hmmm... not necessarily. Or at least not in my setting I think. I say magic is tied to ancestry and cultural background, but that perhaps implies more than it really means. A detailed explanation would require a recitation of my world's entire history, but to sum up: the only people who don't have access to magic are those who either come from a culture that rejected magic long ago and have since forgotten everything they used to know about it or those who come from a culture where the use of magic is restricted to a certain class, children with recognizable talent are whisked away to join that class (like the Jedi), and the average man doesn't stop to consider whether he could learn magic or not because it's considered to be a thing that only the special class can do. There used to be a time when everyone had access to magic, but then everyone lost it thanks to a massive catastrophe. Some people left magic behind for good while others regained it through divine favor, though their new skills differ from the old ones and are typically more limited: one nation's magic is entirely fire-based, while another's is nature-based, etc. There is one nation that managed to hold onto a shred of the old magic from before the great calamity, but I haven't decided precisely what their powers are and how they're limited yet. Fortunately they're a pretty isolationist nation and haven't shown up in my plot so far.

EDIT: The whole " magic children are taken away like Jedi" has been invalidated by a change I made to my world-building like 2 minutes ago, so ignore that part. My world has a habit of evolving even as I write about it.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 28, 2015)

Maybe not elitist. I'm just not a fan of "chosen one" or "you're special" type characters in general. If it's done well I'll ignore it but I don't use it.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Hainted said:


> It also sets up the idea that ANYONE could be a wizard as the idea that it's only certain families or individuals who gain magic ability smacks of elitism to me.



This is one of the key areas, however, where "magic" and "technology" can differ. Technology pretty much requires that, at least in theory, anyone can use it. I believe it is fundamental to the conception of fantasy that, at least, not all humans are capable of "magic". If magic becomes something that anyone can learn to do naturally, then it is pretty much just science fiction set in an imaginary world or imaginary version of our world.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 28, 2015)

Mytho,

I think Jim Butcher would disagree with you on this. The Codex Alera series has just about every human in Alera using magic and it really cannot be classified as sci-fi.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 28, 2015)

I always understood magic and the supernatural to mean anything that doesn't comply with the laws of nature as we understand them. And that's why the whole concept of a magic system confuses me. It's all about organizing the definitively unnatural into a naturalistic order. But on the other hand, without that order, you're left with this limitless force that could potentially intervene at any point to erase the conflict and ruin the dramatic tension. Why, for example, wouldn't a wizard like Gandalf prevent his own premature death unless his wizardry had inherent limitations, therefore giving it a naturalistic character that makes it not really magic at all? It's almost like a paradox.

Of course, I should point out that our current concept of magic and the supernatural is ironically a product of scientific modernity. What we call magic and the fanciful today were perfectly plausible to pre-industrial peoples, or even as real as gravity and oxygen are to us. Even when storytellers obviously made stuff up, no one could verify their reality with Google; as far as your average ancient Greek would have been concerned, there could very well have existed Nemean lions and gorgons, and there could very well be a subterranean abode of the dead or a sunken empire under the ocean. And back when Tolkien and Robert E. Howard were writing, few archaeologists or geologists had enough data to show that Middle Earth and the Hyborian Age were never real periods in our planet's history. The question of magic systems is what happens when humanity comes to know too much.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Mytho,
> 
> I think Jim Butcher would disagree with you on this. The Codex Alera series has just about every human in Alera using magic and it really cannot be classified as sci-fi.



Ah, but even there the magic is restricted. Only the humans can use it. Or, at least, only humans can use furycrafting. The Canim and the Marat can't furycraft at all (with one exception, though that's a very special case), though they do have their own forms of magic.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 28, 2015)

True enough Mindfire, but just about every Marat has a magic of some kind. And for the Canim they can simply use magic if they are part of the mage caste. But, I think that is a choice more than an inherent ability.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Mytho,
> 
> I think Jim Butcher would disagree with you on this. The Codex Alera series has just about every human in Alera using magic and it really cannot be classified as sci-fi.



And that highlights why I think a lot of recent "fantasy" novels are really something different. At the risk of falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, I don't think they follow in the footsteps of the fantasy genre nor do they give me the kind of experience I want from a fantasy novel. There should be a different name for them. Or maybe there should be a more specific name for what I think of as fundamentally fantasy. Speculative fiction has expanded so much in recent decades that I have a really hard time finding books that give me the experience I'm looking for among all the books that claim to be "fantasy" but, in my opinion, don't measure up.

Perhaps we should embrace the term "science fantasy". I've seen it used in the past to describe books by science fiction authors who stray too much into fantasy. But it seems to me it could also easily describe fantasy with more of a sciency feel.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 28, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> And that highlights why I think a lot of recent "fantasy" novels are really something different. At the risk of falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, I don't think they follow in the footsteps of the fantasy genre nor do they give me the kind of experience I want from a fantasy novel. There should be a different name for them. Or maybe there should be a more specific name for what I think of as fundamentally fantasy. Speculative fiction has expanded so much in recent decades that I have a really hard time finding books that give me the experience I'm looking for among all the books that claim to be "fantasy" but, in my opinion, don't measure up.


Or alternatively we could merge sci-fi and fantasy into one larger genre, since they already overlap with one another to the point of people sorting them together on the same Barnes & Noble shelves. Sometimes I wonder if the big difference between sci-fi and fantasy is simply the setting, with one having a futuristic aesthetic and the other historical (though both can be modern-day).

Besides, we already have the concept of subgenres. Maybe whatever brand of fantasy you're looking for could be classified as its own subgenre?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 28, 2015)

Almost everything changes. It's not something you have to like or accept, but regardless of whether you do or, you'll have to deal with it in some way.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> True enough Mindfire, but just about every Marat has a magic of some kind. And for the Canim they can simply use magic if they are part of the mage caste. But, I think that is a choice more than an inherent ability.



Yes, but what I was getting at is that only humans can furycraft, only Canim can use blood magic, and only Marat have sympathetic magic. While each magic type is fairly common _within_ each culture, it's impossible for them to learn the magical skills from outside their culture. With the exception of that one special case I mentioned.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Jabrosky said:


> Or alternatively we could merge sci-fi and fantasy into one larger genre, since they already overlap with one another to the point of people sorting them together on the same Barnes & Noble shelves. Sometimes I wonder if the big difference between sci-fi and fantasy is simply the setting, with one having a futuristic aesthetic and the other historical (though both can be modern-day).
> 
> Besides, we already have the concept of subgenres. Maybe whatever brand of fantasy you're looking for could be classified as its own subgenre?



Merge them and make the haystack even larger? No thanks. When I want to read a fantasy book, I want to read something very distinct from science fiction. Genres exist to help readers find the books they want to buy. Making it more difficult is NOT the answer.

Fantasy subgenres help to eliminate some "fantasy" books from my searches. I know I don't want to read urban fantasy or dark fantasy for instance. But alas, what remains after you divide up the fantasy books into the subgenres that make sense still tends to be rather goopy. Everything tends to be thrown into "epic fantasy" if it doesn't fit elsewhere. Somehow epic fantasy became the catch all subgenre. I really do wish there was a better way to categorize newer fantasy books because what you have to sift through if you browse epic fantasy on Amazon is just a mess.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> Almost everything changes. It's not something you have to like or accept, but regardless of whether you do or, you'll have to deal with it in some way.



I don't think it's a good idea to tell readers to just deal with the mess of fantasy. I think the genre would be much healthier if books could be more effectively marketed.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> And that highlights why I think a lot of recent "fantasy" novels are really something different. At the risk of falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, I don't think they follow in the footsteps of the fantasy genre nor do they give me the kind of experience I want from a fantasy novel. There should be a different name for them. Or maybe there should be a more specific name for what I think of as fundamentally fantasy. Speculative fiction has expanded so much in recent decades that I have a really hard time finding books that give me the experience I'm looking for among all the books that claim to be "fantasy" but, in my opinion, don't measure up.
> 
> Perhaps we should embrace the term "science fantasy". I've seen it used in the past to describe books by science fiction authors who stray too much into fantasy. But it seems to me it could also easily describe fantasy with more of a sciency feel.



Can you describe that fundamental essence you're looking for and how it relates the commonality of magic in the setting? I'm just wondering where my WIP would fall on your axis of fantasy<--->not fantasy.

EDIT: Examples would also be helpful.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 28, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I don't think it's a good idea to tell readers to just deal with the mess of fantasy. I think the genre would be much healthier if books could be more effectively marketed.



Isn't that a way of dealing with it though? The changes will happen regardless of whether we want them to or not and it's something we will have to live with.

Also note that I say "deal with it" I don't mean "sit quietly and accept it without doing anything about it"


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> Isn't that a way of dealing with it though? The changes will happen regardless of whether we want them to or not and it's something we will have to live with.
> 
> Also note that I say "deal with it" I don't mean "sit quietly and accept it without doing anything about it"



In my experience, when people use the phrase "deal with it" it usually means "just accept that things are the way they are and your opinion doesn't matter". But perhaps that's just in the US.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 28, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> In my experience, when people use the phrase "deal with it" it usually means "just accept that things are the way they are and your opinion doesn't matter". But perhaps that's just in the US.



That's fair enough, I won't argue semantics, but like I stated, that wasn't what I meant.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 28, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Can you describe that fundamental essence you're looking for and how it relates the commonality of magic in the setting? I'm just wondering where my WIP would fall on your axis of fantasy<--->not fantasy.
> 
> EDIT: Examples would also be helpful.



That's a good question and one I'd have to give some serious thought to. I can sense when something feels or doesn't feel like fantasy to me, but it's hard to put it into words. It's also not really on topic. Perhaps I will think about it and then start up a new topic.


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 28, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> But having "anything goes" magic doesn't necessarily mean the author hasn't thought things through. Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin are evidence of that. I lean more towards magic as being spiritual or supernatural than scientific personally. I find it more interesting if magic is a divine gift rather than just something that just exists to be exploited.



No rule is infallible, and I take your point, LeGuin uses magic rather sparingly and does explore the consequences. As does Tolkein really (though I personally find him a bit overrated precisely because of the 'anything goes' illogic that permeates the books (and I really can't abide Lewis - way too spiritual for me - which is purely a personal opinion probably wedded to my own personal belief system).
Despite that I do like LeGuin - and a few similar authors - though you've probably hit the nail on the head as I adore Jack Vance - whose approach to magic was adopted by D&D and became known as Vancian magic.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 28, 2015)

Ah, my intuition was correct! I have great affection for the writings of all three writers I cited. (Though I can definitely see how Lewis's work would be difficult to stomach if you don't care for his worldview. Everything I love about his writing is probably what makes you hate it.) My approach to magic isn't quite as whimsical as theirs, but I also take great pains to avoid heavily systematized Vancian magic. Something about it doesn't suit me. Can't quite put my finger on what though.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 28, 2015)

While we're on the subject of "scientific magic", I remember that when I was a kid believing in Santa Claus (as is par for the course for American children), I decided he had special access to alien technology. It was one of few non-supernatural explanations I could imagine for a "magical" character like him existing. And I still think it'd make for a great Christmas movie premise, even if the public is burnt out on Hollywood re-imaginings.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 28, 2015)

To me the difference between Magic and Tech is living beings are required to work magic. Excalibur is just a sword until the right person picks it up. I could rig a system that could cause it to swing(like a robot arm) and it would still be dangerous, but it would only be The Sword of Legend in a living person's hands.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 28, 2015)

I've heard the phrases Hard and Soft magic used to describe things. It comes from Hard and Soft scifi. 

Hard magic is magic where rules are clearly defined, so it can be easily used to solve problems without people complaining about Deus Ex Machina.

Soft magic is magic where rules are more murky, so there's more of a sense of wonder and mystery at what magic can do. But in these types of stories, magic is harder to deal with, because if its limits aren't clearly defined, people will wonder why it can't be used to solve story problems. Having to create story problems where magic can't be a solution is the biggest challenge to this type of story.  LOTR would probably be classified as Soft magic. 

Brandon Sanderson uses these definitions. 
Sanderson’s First Law


----------



## Antaus (Mar 29, 2015)

That is something to consider, the mix of magic, technology, and how they would affect the development of a world and technology. The other thing to consider however is about magic itself and how the term clashes with science. I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said: "Magic is simply a term for a process that cannot be readily explained, once it is, it becomes science."

Which if you think about it is true. To us a gun is something rather common place, but to someone from 1000 years ago it would be deadly magic that could strike someone down instantly. In a lot of my stories that mix technology and magic, magic itself doesn't really exist. In the current world setting I'm developing for a story the term magic is just a hold over from ancient times. About 100 years ago it was officially renamed energy sciences, however most people still just call it magic because they always have.

The practice still involves harnessing one's own internal energies and manipulating them in a way that's completely fictional to achieve effects similar to a high magic fantasy setting. However because science has begun to take hold, it's not just pure mysticism anymore. People are starting to understand the actual process behind what they once called magic.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 29, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I've heard the phrases Hard and Soft magic used to describe things. It comes from Hard and Soft scifi.
> 
> Hard magic is magic where rules are clearly defined, so it can be easily used to solve problems without people complaining about Deus Ex Machina.
> 
> ...



Hold up. Shouldn't "hard" or "soft" refer to how "magical" the magic is, like "hard" vs "soft" SF is about how rigorous the science is? Because in that case, the definitions of hard and soft magic would be flipped. And that makes more sense to me, because I'm kind of envisioning a continuum that has hard SF at one and and hard magic at the other end as opposites, with soft SF and magic being closer to the center.

But that's just me.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 29, 2015)

Antaus said:


> To us a gun is something rather common place, but to someone from 1000 years ago it would be deadly magic that could strike someone down instantly.



I've heard people use this argument, but I'm not convinced by it. It seems to really underestimate the intelligence of ancient humans. As if some time traveler from our age could show up in ancient Egypt with a pistol and an iPod and be declared a god. I don't buy it. I think all humans, regardless of era, are/were intelligent enough to intuitively understand the difference between a clever widget and something actually supernatural.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 29, 2015)

To me Soft Magic and Soft Scifi would almost be the same thing. Something like Dragonriders of Pern or Star Wars would fall into the middle of your continuum. Plus a little off subject would it still be considered Hard Scifi if it used notions that had been disproved since it's creation? Cause a lot of the "Science" in my setting is based on ideas from the Victorian era through the 40s or 50s as well as a lot of quack medicines and devices. I don't consider it Hard Scifi but how would something like Early Asimov be considered now?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 29, 2015)

Hainted said:


> To me Soft Magic and Soft Scifi would almost be the same thing. Something like Dragonriders of Pern or Star Wars would fall into the middle of your continuum. Plus a little off subject would it still be considered Hard Scifi if it used notions that had been disproved since it's creation? Cause a lot of the "Science" in my setting is based on ideas from the Victorian era through the 40s or 50s as well as a lot of quack medicines and devices. I don't consider it Hard Scifi but how would something like Early Asimov be considered now?



Well, unlike fantasy, sci-fi has to evolve along with the science of the time. Fantasy is more or less timeless, but sci-fi is a genre with built-in moving goalposts. So it's unfair to say something is no longer hard sci-fi because what was the current science of the time has since been discredited. I think sci-fi's "hardness" should be judged by the scientific standards of the era it was created in.


----------



## Antaus (Mar 29, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I've heard people use this argument, but I'm not convinced by it. It seems to really underestimate the intelligence of ancient humans. As if some time traveler from our age could show up in ancient Egypt with a pistol and an iPod and be declared a god. I don't buy it. I think all humans, regardless of era, are/were intelligent enough to intuitively understand the difference between a clever widget and something actually supernatural.



We actually do know that the common man from ancient times, at least in Europe, was poorly educated. This would make it extremely difficult for them to understand any advanced concepts. It also doesn't mean people would be declared a god, they'd probably be killed because of it as most people react to the unknown with fear and violence. That's something we still do today. Not to mention how often to people jokingly use the phrase 'it's magic' for something they don't understand?

Even in modern times when science dominates the world this holdover saying is still heard, even when the populace has at the minimum in most circumstances, of a modest education. So it leads one to wonder how much more it might have been used in a serious context in ancient times. However I digress, the original quote was taken out of context as it was merely a simple example to show magic itself it merely an umbrella term for things people don't yet understand.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 29, 2015)

Antaus said:


> We actually do know that the common man from ancient times, at least in Europe, was poorly educated. This would make it extremely difficult for them to understand any advanced concepts.



No, that's not what it means. "Uneducated" is a completely different thing from "unintelligent".


----------



## Antaus (Mar 29, 2015)

But without an education and understanding of how the world around them works even intelligent people would have problems understanding advanced concepts. I know the difference between the two.


----------



## Hainted (Mar 29, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> No, that's not what it means. "Uneducated" is a completely different thing from "unintelligent".



I work for some people that have been educated WAY beyond their intelligence.

My favorite quote, from a man many consider the smartest person in the company with multiple degrees. "I'll never understand why the government wastes so much money on the arts and space exploration. Neither has ever produced anything that made my life better." He then started showing everyone his favorite performances from American Idol on his smartphone.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 29, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Hold up. Shouldn't "hard" or "soft" refer to how "magical" the magic is, like "hard" vs "soft" SF is about how rigorous the science is? Because in that case, the definitions of hard and soft magic would be flipped. And that makes more sense to me, because I'm kind of envisioning a continuum that has hard SF at one and and hard magic at the other end as opposites, with soft SF and magic being closer to the center.
> 
> But that's just me.



You have a point. The way I was interpreting Hard and Soft was Hard rules vs Soft rules. But I think the labels were chosen to fall in line with Hard science and Soft science in the hopes of avoiding confusion. Obviously, it doesn't always work out that way.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 29, 2015)

The terms I am familiar with are "low magic" or high magic", usually in reference to the setting or how much magic is used during the story.


----------

