Scientific concepts in a fantasy world

[Mythopoet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.