McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
What do you wish would be done MORE in urban fantasy?
The Corvidian:
--- Quote from: Magus Dresdenarus on January 31, 2008, 05:41:46 AM ---One thing I really want to see less of: Attempting to make magic a form of "science." (Sorry, Mr. Butcher. That's the one thing I dislike about the Dresden-verse.) Magic(k) isn't science. Magic is religion.
When magic is assumed as science, it also assumes that, like science, magic is dispassionate towards mythology, culture, and tradition. In short, the urban fantasy axiom is "Magic is the same everywhere. Culture and tradition are just 'flavorings.' " In the real world, that just isn't true. Not all magic systems fit into the Egyptian/Golden Dawn/Wicca template. (Disagree ? Try plugging in the ancient Chinese, Babylonian, or tribal New Guinean magic systems into that template.)
It seems to me that all modern urban fantasy takes a magic-is-science approach because it is dispassionate and, as a result, won't offend anyone. In short, magic has become politically correct.
If your character is a Catholic, give him a Catholic viewpoint and make his magic match it according to Catholic tradition; If your character is Wiccan, give him (or her) a Wiccan viewpoint and make his magic match it.
Sure, it takes a LOT of extra research. But it makes magic less homogenous; As a result, you gain real-world verisimilitude and lose that "I cast a ninth-level fireball. Roll your saving throw" feel.
--- End quote ---
According to some sources, magic grew out of religion, and that at one time, the wizard and the scientist were one and the same.
Magus Dresdenarus:
--- Quote from: The Corvidian on January 31, 2008, 05:50:47 AM ---According to some sources, magic grew out of religion, and that at one time, the wizard and the scientist were one and the same.
--- End quote ---
And these sources are ?
Quantus:
--- Quote from: Magus Dresdenarus on January 31, 2008, 05:41:46 AM ---One thing I really want to see less of: Attempting to make magic a form of "science." (Sorry, Mr. Butcher. That's the one thing I dislike about the Dresden-verse.) Magic(k) isn't science. Magic is religion.
When magic is assumed as science, it also assumes that, like science, magic is dispassionate towards mythology, culture, and tradition. In short, the urban fantasy axiom is "Magic is the same everywhere. Culture and tradition are just 'flavorings.' " In the real world, that just isn't true. Not all magic systems fit into the Egyptian/Golden Dawn/Wicca template. (Disagree ? Try plugging in the ancient Chinese, Babylonian, or tribal New Guinean magic systems into that template.)
It seems to me that all modern urban fantasy takes a magic-is-science approach because it is dispassionate and, as a result, won't offend anyone. In short, magic has become politically correct.
If your character is a Catholic, give him a Catholic viewpoint and make his magic match it according to Catholic tradition; If your character is Wiccan, give him (or her) a Wiccan viewpoint and make his magic match it.
Sure, it takes a LOT of extra research. But it makes magic less homogenous; As a result, you gain real-world verisimilitude and lose that "I cast a ninth-level fireball. Roll your saving throw" feel.
--- End quote ---
While I can agree with you to some point, in that overly "crunchy" magic systems in fantasy novels can leave the sound of dice in your head. But I dont really think thats the case in Dresden. While sure, Harry personally looks at it as a Science sort of thing, its constantly pointed out that that is not how everyone does it, and in fact it almost a minority viewpoint; magic is too subjective to be considered a science. Michael uses magic, its just powered by God, wiccan magic practitioners can create holy water in their shrines, Etc. The only homogeneous things I can think of are the basic ways a human handles the energy (words/focii/gestures as mental insulation which is a common theme worldwide, the death curse, the murphyonic field, slowed aging) and some of the distinctions made about mortal magic (like how its the only thing that can canll outsiders, etc). Most of these seem to me to give a basic framework that allows all types of magic to exist. The problem about saying that the magic is a purely catholic thing or purely a wiccan thing is that people then ask why that one is real and all the other types of magic out there are fake? People (or at least me) like some sort of unified view of the world.
Aslo throughout Harry's association with Michael, it seems to me that his view of things is slowing swinging towards the faith side. Its one of my favorite continuing plots, the Harry's reconciliation with God.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Magus Dresdenarus on January 31, 2008, 05:41:46 AM ---It seems to me that all modern urban fantasy takes a magic-is-science approach because it is dispassionate and, as a result, won't offend anyone. In short, magic has become politically correct.
--- End quote ---
Personally, when I write magic as science it's because it allows the reader to have a reasonable notion of what is and isn't possible, so you can play fair within the ground rules you set up. Magic that is not rational means that whatever difficulties and dilemmas your characters get into, there's always the lurking possibility that one of them can pull a magical solution out of their backside and save the day, even if you don't actually do that; and to me that undermines the possibility of generating many kinds of narrative tension.
Fictional takes on magic where you can hear the dice rolling for the damage the fireball does suck, I have no argument there. The other thing that strikes me as a possibility for magic-as-science, though, and that I've not often seen much done with, is magic-as-science that feels like actual real scientific research does, and has the excitement and adventure of being on an expanding frontier of human knowledge. As a working sicentist in my day job, this is one of the things I aspire to do in my fiction.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: neurovore on January 31, 2008, 04:28:59 PM ---Personally, when I write magic as science it's because it allows the reader to have a reasonable notion of what is and isn't possible, so you can play fair within the ground rules you set up. Magic that is not rational means that whatever difficulties and dilemmas your characters get into, there's always the lurking possibility that one of them can pull a magical solution out of their backside and save the day, even if you don't actually do that; and to me that undermines the possibility of generating many kinds of narrative tension.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. I want enough eexplanation of the workings of the magic of the world that when the hero does something suitably impressive, I feel that too. I like magic having some amount of defined limitations, so that when they are pushed, surpassed, or even just circumvented with nice innovation, we feel as impressed as we should. An impressive amount of fireball in Dresden is a far cry from an impressive amount in Alera, for example.
--- Quote ---Fictional takes on magic where you can hear the dice rolling for the damage the fireball does suck, I have no argument there. The other thing that strikes me as a possibility for magic-as-science, though, and that I've not often seen much done with, is magic-as-science that feels like actual real scientific research does, and has the excitement and adventure of being on an expanding frontier of human knowledge. As a working sicentist in my day job, this is one of the things I aspire to do in my fiction.
--- End quote ---
One of the reasons I enjoyed Full-Metal Alchemist so much. I thought they took teh whole "magic still has to deal with physics" idea to a new level, and did it well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version