• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Do wizards think of what they do as magic?

Magic in the ancient world was forbidden.
Skip.Knox has taught me to ask "which ancient world?" when statements like this are made ;) After all, plenty of ancient world out there, all with different rules and ideas :)

In the Middle Ages, magic covers a wide range of practices, but by 1100 or so the usual stance was that magic did not exist.
I visited Yper (in Belgium) last year, and there I was told that the cloth weavers guild (which was the largest and most powerful guild in the city) was considered to have magic for a large part of their existence, which explained how they got their high quality cloth. And they even had a ritual where they threw 3 black cats off their belltower every three years to protect them against black magic.

Not sure how much of that was a real belief or not (though the throwing of cats part at least is well documented...).
 

Insolent Lad

Maester
I've tended to use the word 'magus' (more or less as understood in the Hellenistic world) rather than 'magician' to denote the sort of learned individual who pursues these esoteric fields rather than having any innate powers. Magus originally also had a bit of a religious connotation and can be tied into sabaism, that is, religious astrology.
 
This is a question that I have been considering for a while. In a world where science exists alongside what we would call magic, is there any meaningful distinction between the two? If magic existed, scientists would be trying to pin down how it worked. Would "magic" be considered just another force? Another law of the universe about which theories are formed and experiments are run?

With that in mind, I think that the question of "would they still call it magic" is a good one. On the one hand, perhaps it might be worth looking at the etymology of the names of other scientific theories. For example, "Gravity" comes from the Latin word "gravitatem" or "gravitas", which means weight, heaviness, or pressure.

Another thing to consider is whether Wizards would even call themselves Wizards, as opposed to scientists or physicists.
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
This is a question that I have been considering for a while. In a world where science exists alongside what we would call magic, is there any meaningful distinction between the two? If magic existed, scientists would be trying to pin down how it worked. Would "magic" be considered just another force? Another law of the universe about which theories are formed and experiments are run?

Well...what is magic?

I think, for science types to decide that there is no meaningful distinction, they'd have to define magic is as something other than magic. Magic is a word for something that happens that has no way to explain it. For it to be true magic, it would have to stay in that realm. Science will never get its hands on it.

We live in such a world, because strange, mysterious and miraculous things happen. And we live in a world where things happen, people know there is a reason, but they don't understand it, so they call it magic. The presence of science did not change that the word gets used.

The term 'wizard' is another one of confused definition. Wizard also has entomology, and it comes to us by way of meaning a 'wise man'. There would surely be wise men in the alternate world, so the term would still possibly appear. If we define wizard as just, one who uses magic, we'd be back to, what is magic? If you define it as something that can be scientifically known, its not magic.
 
Last edited:

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Skip.Knox has taught me to ask "which ancient world?" when statements like this are made ;) After all, plenty of ancient world out there, all with different rules and ideas :)


I visited Yper (in Belgium) last year, and there I was told that the cloth weavers guild (which was the largest and most powerful guild in the city) was considered to have magic for a large part of their existence, which explained how they got their high quality cloth. And they even had a ritual where they threw 3 black cats off their belltower every three years to protect them against black magic.

Not sure how much of that was a real belief or not (though the throwing of cats part at least is well documented...).
Well, that skip.knox is not to be relied upon, you can rely on that. <g> As for the ancient world, I was sloppy in my use of the term, and ain't that just like a medieval historian for ya. Greco-Roman ancient, I meant, knowing even that embraces a good deal of diversity,

The cloth weavers example is a good one. We have records of the act, but getting at what people (a lovely, broad term) believed about the act, the cats, and what they were protecting against is (you should excuse the term) devilishly difficulty. Even if we should find the very word "magic" in a primary source, we cannot simply assume the author meant what we understand the word to mean. Some of the weavers might well have thought some curse had been laid upon the city against which the cat-tossing ceremony provided protection. Others might have thought it was possibly nonsense but hey better safe than sorry. And still others might have declared it foolishness and refused to participate, or maybe just mocked it within the confines of their own home. Beyond the guild, the better educated might have argued that this was not black magic but was possibly the influence of Satan. Or that the belief and practice itself was infernal superstition. Lots of room in there.

Which gets me back to writing fantasy fiction. Rather than portray a world in which there's a clear line between natural and supernatural phenomena, which line is understood by all in the same way, how much more interesting it is to deal with blurry lines and inconsistency. Let one group say "sorcerer" means this, while another group insists it means that. I'm not a sorcerer, I'm a wizard. No you ain't, you're a magician. A prestidigitator. A seer. Make up a few of your own.

Now I'm wondering how Egyptian (pre-Hellenic) ideas about magic compare to Roman ideas or to Babylonian ideas.
 
Well...what is magic?

I think, for science types to decide that there is no meaningful distinction, they'd have to define magic is as something other than magic. Magic is a word for something that happens that has no way to explain it. For it to be true magic, it would have to stay in that realm. Science will never get its hands on it.

We live in such a world, because strange, mysterious and miraculous things happen. And we live in a world where things happen, people know there is a reason, but they don't understand it, so they call it magic. The presence of science did not change that the word gets used.

The term 'wizard' is another one of confused definition. Wizard also has entomology, and it comes to us by way of meaning a 'wise man'. There would surely be wise men in the alternate world, so the term would still possibly appear. If we define wizard as just, one who uses magic, we'd be back to, what is magic? If you define it as something that can be scientifically known, its not magic.
I hear what you're saying, but I think we would view things differently if we lived in the world of, say, Tolkien.

Gandalf can use magic. Some would say he's rather good at it. This, to me, implies that he has some level of understanding of the rules that govern magic. Which means that there ARE rules that gover it which CAN be understood, at least up to a point.

In such a world, magic does not simply refer to the unknown. Gandalf clearly knows some things about it, as do others, and those who use magic are distinct from those who do not. In our world, magic is what we call something we do not understand, but in Tolkien's world, magic is demonstrably a force that exists, independent of whether or not we understand it. Magic is a natural part of that world.

And what is science but a method for exploring the natural world?

The point about the etymology of Wizard is interesting as well. It suggests to me the possibility of going the other way: of thinking of physics and whatnot as another kind of magic.
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
I am not sure Gandalf is a great example. I'd more use Harry Potter as the example.

Gandalf barely used any magic, and he was sort of the an angel like character. The power he uses is not by way of manipulating natural things.

In Harry Potter, it may be that things of magic happen with predictable outcomes. But is it the case that I can study its source? Put it under a microscope and see how the electrons behave? Suppose, in spite of predictable outcomes, its still made of stuff that can never be studied. I just cant capture it and put it on a slide. Might it just be that its magic, and even scientist just don't know why it works.

A story about my Dad.

Once, when I was younger, I tried to teach a young kid to skip rocks. I explained to them all the science. The flat surface, the angle of approach, the hardness of the water, the spin....on and on. The kid could not skip a rock.

My Dad watched us, and said, Squat low and throw hard. The kid skipped the rock.

One was showing wisdom, the other knowledge. Wisdom prevailed. I can have a lot knowledge, that does not make me a wise man.
 

Queshire

Istar
See I'm more in the 'Magic as Art' camp rather than the 'Magic as the Unknown' or 'Magic would be treated as a Science by people in universe' camps.

I like magibabble. I like knowing the principles behind a magic system, but I also like having plenty of room for individual expression and understanding.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
To me, the limiting assumption, from an author's point of view, is that there is only one system of magic and that everyone has the same understanding of it.

One way to break out of it is something like what Tolkien does. There might be a system, but the individual characters in the stories have only a dim understanding of that. So, pretty much anything Gandalf or Saruman does is "magic" and isn't to be understood by ordinary folk. I mean, arguably when Aragorn heals, it's magic, though I don't see anyone reacting that way. It's just what true kings can do, given the right resources. Similarly, that dead armies can walk and fight isn't so much magical (as regarded by the characters in the story) as something that is a natural consequence.

Another way, though, is to have lots of differing interpretations of magic. Some regard astrology as silly superstition while others see it as completely reliable, if only you do it right (that last clause is common across magic as well as science). Others might see the ability to do stuff I cannot as being inherent with the person themselves--the heroic theory of magic. Still others might regard certain objects as inherently magical. Do I as author need to provide a universal and coherent theoretical structure for all those theories? IMO, that's up to the author.
 
This is a question that I have been considering for a while. In a world where science exists alongside what we would call magic, is there any meaningful distinction between the two?
It very much depends on the world.

In Tolkien's universe, magic and science are set up as opposite forces. The forces of evil favor science and technology, and in doing so distance themselves from the natural world and the magic of the gods. There, they are viewed as different things, and I agree with Skip that much of the magic in Tolkien's world is accepted more as something a person can simply do, and not so much as magic. Aragorn has a lot of magic. He heals, but he also foretells the future (on multiple occasions). It's just part of who he is and part of what makes him a true king of men. No one goes round pointing at it and calling it magic though. It's just part of the world.

In another setting, I can actually see a world where science is seen as just another branch of magic. Which I think might be more common than the reverse if you think about it. We've only really been doing science for a few hundred years. Assuming people knew magic first, where magic is manipulating the world around you, then a lot of people would lump a steam engine or electricity or any other sciency stuff in with magic. It's just a different way for people to manipulate and explain the world.
 
In Harry Potter, it may be that things of magic happen with predictable outcomes. But is it the case that I can study its source? Put it under a microscope and see how the electrons behave? Suppose, in spite of predictable outcomes, its still made of stuff that can never be studied. I just cant capture it and put it on a slide. Might it just be that its magic, and even scientist just don't know why it works.
Okay... I am not certain what you mean by "it can't be studied". Why wouldn't it be able to studied?

You can't put electricity, schizophrenia or a star in a slide, but we can study them. Putting something in a slide and looking at it under a microscope is not the only way to study it? Before we knew how stars formed, we could still study them, so I am not sure how not knowing where magic comes from disqualifies it from being science.

And... I'm not sure what the story about your Dad and the difference between wisdom and knowledge has to do with this conversation? We aren't talking about the wise use of science or magic, we're talking about how they would be meaningfully distinct if they were both demonstrably real?
 

Queshire

Istar
Everyone forgets about the soft sciences. =( Different types of magic being treated like different schools of philosophical thought sounds fun.
 
This was a question not a statement.
Yes.

And I explained why I don't think that question is relevant to the discussion.

I realise that my previous comment could have come off as rude, for which I apologise.

Okay... I am not certain what you mean by "it can't be studied". Why wouldn't it be able to studied?

You can't put electricity, schizophrenia or a star in a slide, but we can study them. Putting something in a slide and looking at it under a microscope is not the only way to study it? Before we knew how stars formed, we could still study them, so I am not sure how not knowing where magic comes from disqualifies it from being science.
What I meant by this was that when you ask "what if it is made of stuff that cannot be studied" I genuinely do not know what you are asking. If the stuff exists, why would they not be able to study it? If the stuff exists, then it can be studied. Studying it may or may not yield useful results but I don't see why it wouldn't be able to be studied at all.

I mean the answer to your question is "they wouldn't be able to study it". They could study its effects, though. Like I said, we don't have to know everything about something to meaningly study it.

Again, sorry for being rude. I am just genuinely confused as to what you're getting at.
 

Queshire

Istar
This was a question not a statement.

In Harry Potter? Hm, I'm pretty sure that canon doesn't really look into it, but it's something that gets looked at in fanfics. Wizards having magical cores is over used in bad Harry Potter fanfics that it's become something of a joke when it comes to fanfics, though there was one story I read that did some interesting stuff with the idea that ancient mages did some great big magical working to restrict the natural wild magic so that it was safer & more predictable to use. The precise wand movements and pronunciation aren't magical in their own right, but are simply a way to let that great working know that you wanted to do a thing.

Personally in my setting the source of magic is a bit complex, but the short answer is that it's the left over proto-reality from the creation of the world that can be shaped by willpower to either make stuff or alter what already exists.
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Okay...two definitions:

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

(Both pulled from the first thing Google popped up).


I said above: I think, for science types to decide that there is no meaningful distinction, they'd have to define magic is as something other than magic. Magic is a word for something that happens that has no way to explain it. For it to be true magic, it would have to stay in that realm. Science will never get its hands on it.

This would fit with the two definitions above. Magic is something that cannot be explained. Science is something for which things are studied. If science is capable of finding a truth about magic other than 'it cannot be explained' then magic is not magic.

I thought the example of Gandalf was poor, because Gandalf does not use magic, but rather, he uses miracles from God. Since God can do anything, Gandalf does not have to study it, he just has to ask.

A better example is Harry Potter. Every time he spins his wand and says some Latin sounding words, the same thing happens. It would seem there is some magical source, and it can be controlled. But....its still magic...

Why does Harry Potter's spell work? Is there some secret powder in his wand? Is it plugged into some 120V magic outlet? I would think, the source of the power is still a mystery. It cannot be captured in a jar, or put on a slide. They cannot study it like it was a material. It remains mysterious, but lucky for them, still predictable --and maybe one day, it wont be.

In fact we can study electricity and even see electrons moving under a microscope. And we can know things about stars and schizophrenia, and disorders of the brain. The microscope is not an all containing statement, some science does not require it. I just said that to draw attention to there was no way to hold magic in your hand, and run tests on its source material.

BUT....You can, if you want to, write it that way. Thus I asked....is it the case that I can study its source? If you say no, then its magic. If you say yes, its not magic by definition.

If magic cannot be studied, because its source is mysterious, it could still be used with predictable results (Harry Potter) and still be magic. Scientists would just have to say, this works, but I don't know why it works, and why it works will always be a mystery.


You said:

The point about the etymology of Wizard is interesting as well. It suggests to me the possibility of going the other way: of thinking of physics and whatnot as another kind of magic.

I did not follow this, but I suggests to me that you are saying, Wizard, which springs from 'wise man' in entomology, might come about another way, such as through science and understanding. I said...wisdom and knowledge are not the same.

My meaning being, Wizard might still form as a word on any planet because 'wise men' will abound. There will always be some who are wise and some who are knowledgeable. They will not always exist in the same person.



I let this go before, but:

And what is science but a method for exploring the natural world?

Magic is not of the natural world. It is of the supernatural world. If it is of the natural world, again, magic needs another definition.



You initially asked:
In a world where science exists alongside what we would call magic, is there any meaningful distinction between the two?

My answer is the same: You live in such a world and we still have both terms.
 

Queshire

Istar
Honestly let's all get our heads out of our asses. We're writing this for the readers first and foremost. If it walks like a wizard and squawks like a wizard then it's a wizard.
 

Genly

Troubadour
Along these lines, I guess that it is possible to construct a world where aspects of what we call magic could be studied and categorized in a similar way to how we study science, but then those processes would be called something else rather than "magic". For the purpose only of this post, I'll call it "necromancy'. In that world, there might still be "magic", but it would be phenomena that are similar in effect or manifestation to necromancy but are unexplained. I do agree with Queshire: magic that can't be explained or improved at all is not that interesting or effective as a dramatic device, IMHO.

Having said that, it is also possible to imagine a world where magic, as opposed to necromancy, is by definition unexplainable. Such a world would probably be more likely to have considerable divine intervention of various kinds.
 

Genly

Troubadour
Also, another thought: stuff can be used without really knowing how it works. For example, gunpowder was used for centuries before the fundamental chemical reactions and thermodynamics were formulated that explained how it works. Maybe the same would be true of "necromancy": people know what works and what doesn't, they just don't know why.
 
Top