Scientific concepts in a fantasy world

[Hainted]

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]

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]

Now, allow me to reply.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

 

[Mindfire]

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.

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. )

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.

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.

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...

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Mythopoet]

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]

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]

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.