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

How much science in your fantasy?

Ophiucha

Auror
Spawned by a debate I had with a woman who insisted science fiction and fantasy were unmixable genres and that Dragonriders of Pern was pure fantasy, I thought I would ask you guys where you personally draw the line between science fiction and fantasy, and whether or not you include any science in your stories. Do you enjoy having magic linked to DNA, chromosomes, or some abstract scientific concept? Do you explain your dragons ability to fly by mixing and matching their biology with a T-Rex and a pterodactyl? Do your apothecaries stock pure minerals and gases for sale to any passerby alchemist? Or do you prefer a world where gravity and mountains are the results of a war between dragons and wizards? A world where anything can happen, where magic is as mysterious as it is powerful, a world where we took up wands instead of guns?

I think most authors fall somewhere between, really. It's sort of unavoidable. The advanced systems of magic are borderline sciences in even the most nonsensical of fantasy stories, and steampunk is becoming a popular trend in both science fiction and fantasy. I, personally, have both science and magic, but they are very separate entities. Magic is a mystical thing with little obvious logic behind it, and science is as advanced as any alternative world sci fi story would have it. There aren't many places where the two interact, though.
 
My story has magic being a natural gift.. either you have it or you don't o_O My dragons fly for the same reason the dragons in the 1983 movie Flight of Dragons do LOL It just seemed their theory was the most logical I'd ever come across so I ran with it LOL. I do believe every story has small bits of science in them.... Though on my worlds you'll find no guns of weapons of mass destruction or anything of the sort. There you'll find sharp pointy things and spells galore LOL dragons, massive birds made out of Rocks blood born "werewolves" etc. I tend to shy away from modern fantasy in general. For me to read it it really has to catch me within the first couple of pages LOL
 
Umm, not a lot of science, actually, in my current WIP. Just regular people in a secondary world, with cool creatures that don't exist here (griffins and dragons!). I am toying with the idea of my FMC discovering latent powers of some sort, but I haven't worked out the details. Oh, yeah, and I do have an ancient warrior spirit that protects those whom he deems worthy.

I, too, shy away from writing modern fantasy. I love historical/medieval/Ren. time periods. (Hey, my name isn't LadyPamela for nothin')! :)
 

Telcontar

Staff
Moderator
But.. the Dragon Riders of Pern was actually pure science fiction. They were descendants of colonists who had genetically bred the dragons. They visited the space ships that brought them there.

Anyway, I definitely try many angles on this. I have the tendency to try and define everything, but I actually prefer to let magic be very mysterious. If you create a complex but consistent magic system, it ceases to be magic - it's science now, just science different from the real world.

My personal sweetspot here would be giving the reader just enough information about magic so they have a vague idea of what should be possible, or what your magic-users should be capable of, with lots of room for leeway. I think Tolkien nailed this aspect. He kept magic mysterious and impressive.
 
Science I try to keep as an opposing force to magic, much as in reality it is an opposing force to religion. It doesn't come up much in my writing, as I usually get my science fix by writing some Sci-fi instead of mixing it into my fantasy. With that being said, I have to disagree about Tolkien's handling of magic, at least in the actual LOTR trilogy.

In the Hobbit, Tolkien was much more open about Gandalf performing magic. He blows stuff up, he lights pine cones on fire, he more or less time travels, he screws with troll's minds (not that you really need magic for that, ventriloquism would probably have worked just as well).

I can agree that magic shouldn't get turned into a deus ex machina, but it does need a certain amount of 'screen time' in a story, or what's the point of having it? The only things I can think of that Gandalf does by magic in the entire LOTR trilogy is light a fire, make light with his staff, the fight with the balrog, of course, a bit of self defense from Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fangorn, and a 'shaft of white light' he shoots a nazgul with outside minas tirith. I may be missing one or two, but that's not much, and realistically, for 'magic' is kind of lame, at least in my opinion.
 
One of my chars is an elementalist.. she works with the five major elements. But it's not a taught ability, she was born having it and had to be taught how to control it o_O I don't think that falls under the science category x.x!
 

Telcontar

Staff
Moderator
Heh. What you call lame, I like. Also, you're missing on of my favorite parts - Gandalf fighting the Ring Wraiths on Weathertop. They describe Aragorn and the hobbits seeing it from a far, though I forget the exact words.

Not sure how you can call some of these things lame, also. The fight with the Balrog? These are two of the most ridiculously powerful creatures in the world.

A lot of the magic in the Lord of the Rings is very subtle on the surface. It is often a sort of contest of wills - Balrog vs. Gandalf, Aragorn vs. Sauron, Gandalf vs. Saruman, etc. I always have in mind that nearly any other creature attempting these feats would not only lose, but lose hard. The magic may not be flashy, but I most certainly find it impressive.

@Mdnight Falling: Even a born ability can be kind of scientific. It all falls down to the system itself. If it is predictable and reliable, it is really just a replacement for science. This isn't all that bad - most magic actually IS a replacement (or enhancement) to science.
 

Ophiucha

Auror
But.. the Dragon Riders of Pern was actually pure science fiction. They were descendants of colonists who had genetically bred the dragons. They visited the space ships that brought them there.
Yes, I was arguing in favor of it being science fiction - the lad I was arguing against said it wasn't. To be specific, he said: "Ok strap some freaking lazers on the dragons shoulders and then we got sci fi. otherwise dragons are mythology shall i sendd you links to prove myself cuz i really dont feel i should waste my time arguing with you. you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about and i think it will stay that way because you are not willing to accept the fact that you are wrong!!!!!! have a nice day you mythology sci fi mixer upper. have a nice day just wondering did you read it. i dont wanna come off as mean or anything but its the truth" There were a few others arguing against me, but he was the most... vocal.

And I also enjoy more mysterious magic, although I do like to include science as a separate entity in the story, too. The magic is mysterious, and you don't really know how it works. And then there is science, and we know exactly how it works. And they coexist.
 
I've owned a bunch of the McCaffrey books.. but never read any of them... I'm all for reading about dragons, unicorns and others of the sorts, but something about the Dragon Riders of Pern refused to catch me LOL Now I know why x.x damn sci-fi x.x!
 
@Telcontar: This is why people have free will, so they can have different opinions about things. Everyone wants something different in their fantasy. I'm not saying that the utmost inner workings of magic need to be explained. Realistically that's probably more exposition than most authors are going to be able to 'sneak' into the text. I don't mind that Tolkien doesn't explain how magic works. Ultimately, I don't care how it works, so long as it does.

As for weathertop, yes, I forgot that part, though I did mention I thought I was forgetting some. That is probably one of the 'flashier' sequences, and what I would consider to be an appropriate use of magic in the story.

The fight with the balrog... there isn't much magic there. Gandalf tries to put a spell on the exit door from Balin's mausoleum, and it doesn't work, the door shatters into a million pieces, but you don't see it. Gandalf just tells you about it. The fellowship then proceeds to run away(a time honored tradition among fantasy characters, lol) and get to the bridge. Again, there isn't what I'd call a 'magical battle' Gandalf just breaks the bridge, they fall, end of scene.

The rest of this fight, the actual magical battle part, again, the only time you hear about it is from Gandalf when they meet up in Fangorn. Now, obviously from your username you are a much bigger Tolkien fan than I am. When I was a teenager, probably sixth through ninth grade, I read and re-read LOTR over and over, probably a dozen times. Now, after having read so much more of the variety of fantasy out there, I can't read Tolkien anymore, for reasons I won't go into because I don't want to hijack the thread.

I have a deeply buried thread of cynicism inside. I also have several more right on the surface, and if the only 'proof' of something is one person's word, and no one else saw it; I don't readily believe it. Even in literature. I always harbor the suspicion that Gandalf is a fraud, his 'offstage' magic just things he makes up to enhance his reputation, because let's face it, Gandalf is a bully. He demands that things be done his way, and he has little patience for people who try alternate theories.

I also find it interesting how readers as a group extend a forbearance to magic that they wouldn't have anywhere else. If an author went around saying that 'Bobby is the worlds' greatest swordsman' but Bobby never draws his sword, we all just kind of go WTF? But once magic is involved, we all suddenly have the patience of saints.

In the end we're just looking for different things in fantasy novel and that's fine. That's what we're here to discuss, isn't it? :)
 
That response was well thought out Donny and I absolutely agree with you on Gandolf -.- Even in the movies the magic he used was minimal. It made to look flasher but still I think in the first movie when he's stuck on the tower top and calls the bird thing (which my fiancee informed me came from the Hobbit which I never bothered to read >.>) he doesn't even use ANY magic.. at least not in the movie... I don't remember if he did in the book in this part or not. I mean honestly, the Bad guy white wizard got off the tower without calling for a bird... So why couldn't Gandolf too o_O. I think the only thing that actually shows Gandolf does have some basic abilities is the fact that he didn't die in the scene with the bridge.. Tell me since you all have finished the books and probably the movies where I haven't... Do they ever tell how he became a white wizard?
 
Gandalf is one of the Maiar, who serve as angelic beings in the LotR universe. He's basically existed since the beginning of time so he's incredibly powerful although, as has been noted, he doesn't always show it. Anyway, the Maiar change bodies like someone changes hats, so it's no surprise that he bounced back from his encounter with the Balrog. Some might consider it a bit of a cheat, but who am I to question Grandpappy Tolkien?:D
 
Ahhhh so a bit of light has been shed.. thank you Dusk cause that falling with the Balrog and then being a white wizard irked me to no end LOL >^.^< Your information has been stored and hopefully I'll remember it when I read or watch the movies again
 

Ravana

Istar
Gandalf is one of the Maiar, who serve as angelic beings in the LotR universe.… the Maiar change bodies like someone changes hats

Similar to the Hindu concept of avatars: he's a mortal incarnation of a divine being. The balrogs, by the way, are also Maiar, as is Sauron… they're the ones that followed the original "dark lord" (Melkor or Morgoth, depending on when in history he's encountered; same guy, either way). Turns out that all five of the Istari (Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, and two others) were Maiar, apparently, if one delves deeply enough into the "unfinished" stuff Chris published after daddy's death. The Maiar were themselves either a subset of the Valar (the big gods–though they rarely do anything; the only one whose name shows up in LoTR is Elbereth/Gilthoniel) or were a lesser "species" (angels/demigods as opposed to gods); it's not entirely clear which, as Tolkien used "Valar" both in reference to the entire group of divinites and specifically to the ones who are not Maiar.

Of course, that's pretty much a side track from where this thread started out.… :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ravana

Istar
"have a nice day you mythology sci fi mixer upper. have a nice day just wondering did you read it. i dont wanna come off as mean or anything but its the truth"

Hmm. Think I may have to abandon my usual objectivity and tact on this one…:

What an idiot.

Just wondering if he read the books? Like the story where it talks about the initial survey team that scouted the planet to see if it was good for colonization? Like the parts where they talk about the dragons being selectively bred–and, it is at least implied, genetically engineered–from native creatures? Like the original colony ships still in orbit above the planet? Like the supercomputer that gets discovered in… well, I'll skip the rest of that, so as to not spoil it for those who haven't read it.

News flash: that's science fiction. There's no reason you can't have dragons in science fiction. We could easily engineer reptilians that large now (getting them to fly would be harder… okay, impossible: that part, at least, is more "fantastic" than "scientific"), never mind what could be done centuries or millennia from now, never mind what could be done with native stock on another planet that was already part way there. Fire-breathing would be trickier, but again, if they were already evolved that way.…

Don't want to come off as mean or anything… ahh, forget it: I'll happily come off as mean on this one. The guy's a moron. (He also can't type, can't spell, and can't handle grammar or punctuation. In all likelihood he's ugly and his mother dresses him funny, too. If you're going to argue about literature, you shouldn't start by destroying your credibility by coming off as illiterate.… :p )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ravana

Istar
Anyway, to answer the initial question.… :rolleyes:

I've covered the entire spectrum, from using purely "real" fantasy settings (no magic, no nothin') to scientifically "explained" magic (you've seen me mention it elsewhere) to the utterly fantastic, impossible-to-base-in-anything-even-vaguely-resembling-science variety. Generally, I lean towards something that at least sounds like it could be accounted for, somehow: if nothing else, it helps when addressing the issue of placing limits on what it can do.

I'll also tell you that a great deal of what's considered "science fiction" is more "magical" than a lot of what you see in fantasy. Faster-than-light travel? Completely impossible, as far as we know. Teleportation? Even worse. Nanotechnology? Yes, it exists, in its infancy; no, it will never be able to do a lot of the things it's represented as being capable of. Telepathy? Well, some claim it exists now–and the most common response by the scientific community to such claims is that it can't be explained by any known scientific principle, can't be reliably tested, and doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics… none of which so much as even slows down an SF author who wants to use it. I just finished reading a book by Walter Jon Williams where the characters actually did use magic (a variation on geomancy, to be specific)… but no one would ever mistake it for "fantasy" just because magic was there.

The simple "truth" (to borrow a word Ophiucha's critic abuses–he seems to think employing it will instantly seal his victory… a sort of invocation, as it were…) is that nearly all SF requires not merely extrapolation from current science, but in most cases the invention by the author of things that don't exist, that we have no reason to believe could exist, and which often flat-out violate one or more accepted scientific laws. Seriously: "focusing crystal"? Magic. But "dilithium crystal"? Ahh, now we're in the realm of science.…

Bull.

On the other hand, there probably isn't much point in arguing science with someone who can't spell "laser" properly.…
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Amanita

Maester
Sorry for ignoring the LotR-discussion but I’m not that familiar with Tolkien’s world, therefore only an answer for my own.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, I believe, my „modern“ fantasy world has advanced science similar to our own in many ways.

Elemental magic is really intertwined with chemistry by then which leads to the practitioners discovering new ways to use their powers but there are also many old abilities that are forgotten by most, because they aren’t linked to chemistry in any logical way and many magicians don’t believe in them anymore.
This change used to be the reason for great troubles between the elemental magicians in the past but now the “pro-science-side” has more or less “won.” Looking on elemental magic this way has led to many problems however. People started thinking that using elemental magic isn’t different from powering a chemical reaction with heat, pressure or anything like that but it makes a great difference on someone’s mind, something they stopped believing as well, however.

The other form of magic in my world is inborn in people who are descendents of water nymphs, storm demons and other creatures like that. It is often seen as completely contrary to science for various reasons and people who have that non-human descended not that far back are hardly able to live in a modern environment anymore, many of them end up in psychiatric treatment and die from the drugs they’re given.
They used to be the dominant group of magic users in the past but have been pushed to the background in the course of history.
There’s also an enmity between the practitioners of the two forms of magic, among other reasons because they can’t properly interact magically with each other.

Both science and elemental magic are more about conquering nature and making humans less dependent from it, while the second form of magic is about respect and worthship for nature, many of the things they can do, are only possible due to the help of their non-human ancestors.

Concerning the differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy. I often get the impression that besides the future setting, terminology is an important factor. Many Science Fiction-concepts aren’t any more realistic than most Fantasy concepts but they’re described as if they were connected to modern science while Fantasy tries to leave such terms out completely.
On the other hand it’s not really easy to decide which abilities might be possible one day and which ones aren’t. Two hundred years ago most people probably wouldn’t have believed that it’s possible to write a message down in Germany and have people in the USA be able to read it a few seconds later without magic. ;)
 
I forget where this line originated, possibly Star Trek in some way shape or form, but basically it says "Any technology so far beyond our own as to be inexplicable is essentially magic."
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
I believe Arthur C Clarke's Third Law is "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". And Star Trek thing that was said along those lines is probably based on this.
 
My world is still getting to grips with steampower and clockwork devices. If I get an idea which requires society to become more advanced I'll have to consider a change of approach and an upping of the technological stakes, but so far things are ticking along nicely. No pun intended.
 
Top