Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Man, speaking of that, I'm getting pretty tired of plugging his works, but I really think that Sanderson carries off a very technical system of magic really well in Mistborn.
(read as: i don't like it when people say magic SHOULD be X to be effective)
@Alkthash: That assumes that their magic works that way, or that someone with that kind of power would think that way.
^ I mean that it suits my ideal, not that other ways cannot be effective if written well. But all in all, I prefer the inexplicable and eerie.
@Nova: Those all act against the thematics of magic I outlined above, though, in the hugepost. In most long-lasting stories, magic isn't systemised whatsoever; it's mostly modern works (that is, enlightment-era, post-modern and so on and so forth) that have significant, different designations of magic and the like. And it's precisely these modern works that often miss the point, treating magic like a science rather than a force of "other". Some works do well with this approach -- Fullmetal Alchemist springs to mind as the obvious example -- but others seem to do it for the sake of it, without it adding anything significant to the story or thematics.
Having such significant differences between types of magic implies an application of consistent logic to begin with, which is only barely magic from a narrative perspective. Understanding is the antithesis of magic as the "other", because it domesticates it. And I think it's no mistake that we live in an era of both domesticated magic and domesticated monsters; consider how many fantasy stories have things like dragon riders or friendly vampires, which are symptoms of the same alteration in handling these things. And that's the essential issue of post-romantic fantasy; because they're written from a perspective of rationality first and foremost, they have no room for magic and the bizarre in its rawest and most narratively effective form. What we usually get is an imitation described as magic but not following any of its thematic rules, rendering much fantasy to be more like medieval science-fiction than anything else.
This is a pretty good example of how magic's application in media has changed over the years. It's always been clear that magic has some rules, but they've always been hidden and inhuman, making sense only from a perspective of divine or hellish understanding. Why doesn't Morgan La Faye just use her magic to crush all the knights of the Round Table in their armour if she hates them so much? Is she simply incapable of it? Or is there some kind of rule she fears breaking? It's not knowledge meant for us, though.
In any case, the paradigm shift has been pretty recent; pretty much within the last few decades and the popularisation of fantasy following D&D. And all these stories are based directly on the settings of D&D or draw very heavily from them, which means that there are "game mechanics" in the writing, if only implicitly. Non-interactive stories don't need things like class balance, or don't follow the rules of imbalanced games -- they simply follow the rules of what makes for the best story. And because so much fantasy is drawn from or based on a game (which by necessity includes both rules and conditions), those factors become factors of the literature.
Before that, wizards, witches, warlocks, necromancers and all their ilk seldom applied their skills to combat. They were social engineers or manipulators first and foremost, placing the main characters in scenarios that were abstracted enough for broad appeal but also frightening and unusual enough to beg interesting questions. Even Gandalf, as powerful as he is, never threw a fireball; when he needed fire to use against wargs in The Hobbit, he set pinecones on fire and simply threw them. And when he needed to kill the goblin king, he didn't use some incredible blast of energy, but turned himself invisible with a spell. He didn't kill the trolls directly, either; he imitated their voices, but we don't know whether that was by skill or magic.
The paradigm shift in favour of magic has happened directly as a result of its domestication and is very young. Considering that almost all human mythology and folklore since the beginning of time includes magic, the current situation is bucking the trend rather than my own preferences.
Exactly how I feel about the subject.
Sorry for linking to TVT, but there was similar discussion in World Building, so for reference and comparison: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13406726080A72380100&page=1
Also contains some further links.
----
In unrelated news: cavalry is soldiers on horses, calvary is a replica of the place where the Christ died. It makes for a bit of an amusing typo.
Because it's more fun to see your opponent die of a hugeass fireball than it is to hack him to death?
Pfft. To you, perhaps.
Sorry, I guess it was the 'should' that got me there.
haha, thinking people actually read that (this is all the more ironic considering how long this got :V )
There are works that pull off a systemization, and works that don't. It depends on what they're shooting for.
For example, in Harry Potter, there's a vague systemization of magic. We know there are charms, there are systems of magic that rely on the manipulation of matter (Transfiguration), there are elements of interacting with nature (Potions), etc etc. However, the underlying trappings of what magic is and its deeper mysteries are, for the most part, left unexplored.
This creates a curious effect, wherein we understand some of what magic is and how it works, enough to work for the story, but there is so much left unexplored that pretty much anything can go.
Then there are settings where magic is much less... fantastic, but there are still fantastic elements. Take one of the most popular long-running series, the Wheel of Time.
There, we sort of know what magic is- it's the force that drives the Wheel, which weaves the Pattern. We know how it works- channelers weave threads of Air, Fire, Water, Earth, and Spirit. we know what the magic is to an even greater extent- we have had the sensations of immersing yourself in the Power described several times, with Saidin being chaotic, and requiring you to force it to do your will, and Saidar being like a river, seemingly placid but with undercurrents that will drag you under it if you don't guide it without forcing it.
As the series goes in, things slowly become more and more systemized, and things that were previously fantastical, like Traveling, cuendillar, the World of Dreams, and such, become mundane. However, there is still enough left unexplored that there's a significant amount of the fantastic left around- the arches at Rhuidian, Mashadar and Shadar Logoth, etcetera.
That creates the oddest feeling, as you almost feel like you should be able to tell how it works, but if you think about it, you really have no idea, leaving the idea that there is so much more to explore.
Then, you have Mistborn, which is a highly systemized series. Everything has a clear set of rules, has a cause and effect, and can only do X, Y, and Z.
However, the nature of the magic makes it feel less like a science and more like a magic. Or, rather, the atmosphere and tone of everything surrounding it- Allomancy feels like a science, the Mists feel like magic.
I have heard arguments that both of these are symptoms of the current trend of humans overcoming nature in favour of technology- conquering the fantastic.
so for college shit I need to find an example of a country that became democratic after the year 1980
this is actually a bit harder than it sounds
I'm older than 19.
Well, this isn't promising.
This is even less promising.
And why would you shoot a skunk anyway?
What is the definition of "democratic"?
Also, I have no idea what's so hard about that, you've got the entire former Eastern bloc on your disposal.
Go with Yugoslavia.
So Ben Kingsley's the Mandarin and my theory that Marvel aims to make Iron Man 3 their most problematic movie ever gains much more footing. (Not like using a villain called The Mandarin modelled after Fu Manchu is exactly one of the brightest ideas I've ever heard)
Formaldehyde and I are waiting for people.
I'm also older than 21.
21 here.
Have you dusted it out recently?
Also, a little late, but happy birthday Alk and forzare.
^^ I haven't dusted it out ever, actually. I'm kind of afraid to actually disassemble it at all, given how little I know about computers.
You can probably ask someone to do it (For a price)
Hmm.
So, I have 3 labs due within 2 days of each other...in the same class.
My school sucks at scheduling.
Come back to the school on a giant robot and present your complaint formally.
They're bound to listen if you're on a giant robot.
I'd say the biggest problem with Magic in D&D 3.5 (because this is the only system that is aptly described here) is that it's both ridiculously powerful while being very mundane... which in turn makes most the settings kind of fall apart when you think about them too hard.
Government where public office is filled through the competition of independent political parties for the popular vote?
And yeah, I thought about doing an Eastern Bloc country, but I wanted to try to go for one a little less obvious than that...
Academic hipsterness leads to hell, Wicked.
Wait wait wait wait wait
Wait
Wait
You can dust out laptops!?