Every genre/setting/campaign has its own clichés that -preferably- should be avoided when creating our worlds. Which ones do you consider the worst? (I'm focusing more on medieval fantasy, but any genre will do)
Races tied to specific real-world cultures.
I think the discussion in the philosophy thread (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?71697a) is relevant here.
QuoteEvery genre/setting/campaign has its own clichés that -preferably- should be avoided when creating our worlds.
Not necessarily should be avoided. Cliches become cliches because the themes resonate with an audience, and some endure and define their respective genres. Others can be refurbished into something new and different, or reinterpreted. It depends greatly on your goal in creating the setting.
In creating a fairytale setting, I think the setting would thrive on evil knights kidnapping princesses, malevolent dragons demanding sacrifices, and all the classics.
Time Travel.
I agree, I think clichés should only be avoided if they are used unthinkingly, as in, putting elves in your setting because it's fantasy, therefore there are elves, rather than because you have a genuine purpose for them within your creation. Indeed, I think some of the most creative work, not just in setting design, but in any art-form, comes when people intelligently explore "cliché" elements and find unique angles to approach them from.
Other than, as I said, the simple unthinking use of clichés - or perhaps a better way to put it is their use without good reason - I think the only reason they should be avoided is due to personal taste... so I suppose I could name a few of the core-D&D-esque fantasy tropes that I personally find distasteful...
Races with set alignments
Active and provably existent deities EDIT: actually, these could be done well, possibly. I suppose what I really dislike are religions based on such deities. They just don't ring true, unless you quite drastically redefine what you mean by a deity in your setting...
Multiple unconnected "schools" or "classes" of magic (arcane/divine, spontaneous/prepared, magic/psionics, etc.)
Apostrophes
Quote from: Kindling...putting elves in your setting because it's fantasy, therefore there are elves, rather than because you have a genuine purpose for them within your creation.
Other than, as I said, the simple unthinking use of clichés - or perhaps a better way to put it is their use without good reason - I think the only reason they should be avoided is due to personal taste... so I suppose I could name a few of the core-D&D-esque fantasy tropes that I personally find distasteful...
Races with set alignments
Active and provably existent deities EDIT: actually, these could be done well, possibly. I suppose what I really dislike are religions based on such deities. They just don't ring true, unless you quite drastically redefine what you mean by a deity in your setting...
Multiple unconnected "schools" or "classes" of magic (arcane/divine, spontaneous/prepared, magic/psionics, etc.)
I couldn't have written this better myself. well, actually mine would have been more scathing, so thank you for putting it gently.
I can't think of many bad examples from this community-- from what I've read around here, we're all pretty good about not unthinkingly reusing stale cliches in boring ways. And I'm of the opinion that just about anything works if you put a modicum of original, critical thought into it.
However, please note a few of the perennial offenders:
- a long-imprisoned primordial evil is awakening at last
- the four classical elements are hilariously overemphasized
- elves are just like humans, only better in every way
- dwarves have only five personality traits: smithing, subterraneanism, surliness, Scottishness, and beer
- magic and technology are set up as equals and opposites, grudge match time
- dragons just lounge around all day on huge piles of gold, waiting for marauding adventures to come poke them with swords
I dunno, I'm going to stop writing now, before I accidentally start listing things I'm overdoing myself.
And don't forget, sometimes it is cool to take a cliche and do it differently or better.
Quote from: Luminous_Crayona long-imprisoned primordial evil is awakening at last
the four classical elements are hilariously overemphasized[/quote]
This is true, probably because of their simplicity.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon- dragons just lounge around all day on huge piles of gold, waiting for marauding adventures to come poke them with swords
that's actually a scientific fact.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon- dragons just lounge around all day on huge piles of gold, waiting for marauding adventures to come poke them with swords
Last time I checked, there were an awful lot of Half-Dragons running around, and we all know the sultry bar wench from the dirtfarmton is too busy with her day job to take a long walk through the Shadowwoods, up the Darkcliff Mountains, over the Duskdoom Bridge and into the dragon's lair just for a passionate night of ecstasy...
[quote Kindling][...]I think clichés should only be avoided if they are used unthinkingly[...][/quote][...]from what I've read around here, we're all pretty good about not unthinkingly reusing stale cliches in boring ways[...][/quote][...]And don't forget, sometimes it is cool to take a cliche and do it differently or better.[...][/quote]
Well, in that case I think it would cease to be a cliché. But totally agree, it's nice to see a twist in something "common"
Oh! My personal favorites (been there, done that, got the mage's invisibility robe):
a) Orcs/Goblins/Hobgoblins are bad. Period. Their only motivation is to kill, rampage and take the money the tooth-fairy gave to children.
b) The human-elf-dwarf-something alliance vs the orcish nation.
c) The "tolkienesque" elf based on the movie...I know it looked cool to see them attack synchronously, but hey, let's give them some background, shall we?
d) The chosen. Please! I'm sick of "the chosen one" monologue. Are the gods or Destiny so reckless to put the faith of millions (usually) of beings in the hand of a SINGLE person?
(I like the next one, but I've seen it way to many times)
e) Gods alliances (usually Greek, Nordic, Indian and some other pantheon) to defeat some "ultimate" evil, likely being the Chaos itself.
[quote Elemental_Elf]Last time I checked, there were an awful lot of Half-Dragons running around[...][/quote]
And dragons as well. I always thought that being so massive, their territory would span for thousands of kilometers, and being so territorial (even the good ones) it would be impossible for humanoid races to have kingdoms if the dragons population was to big. Despite that, I've played in campaigns were you always had an abundance of them to slay at any level...
Quote from: Cap. Karnaugh (aka gnola14)[quote Elemental_Elf]Last time I checked, there were an awful lot of Half-Dragons running around[...]
Very true, however Dragons do possess the ability to polymorph, so they can leave their big caves and go off to enjoy the sights and sounds of all the little people he allows to live on his land. Plus Dragons tend to live in areas most kingdoms shy away from - scary forests, high mountains, arid deserts and the ocean.
www.tvtropes.org
Enjoy, and you're welcome.
But, to get you started: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCounterpartCulture , http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandardFantasySetting , http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeftJustifiedFantasyMap
Most importantly: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreNotBad and http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/TropesAreNotBad
M.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfVery true, however Dragons do possess the ability to polymorph...
that may or may not be true, but that is a DnD cliche right there ;)
[quote tvtropes.org]
[...]On the whole, tropes are not clichés. The word clichéd means "stereotyped and trite". In other words, dull and uninteresting. [...]
[/quote]
I believe we all agree on this. So, rephrasing my question: which things do you consider boring or overused just the way they are, with no twist?
The flippant answer would be "everything"
Without a twist, or at least a fresh view or style to it, almost anything that has been done before has, well, been done before. I think unless you're creating something entirely new, in order to be interesting, there has to be at least a slight twist or change of flavour or SOMETHING to make your work interesting, in any field.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfLast time I checked, there were an awful lot of Half-Dragons running around, and we all know the sultry bar wench from the dirtfarmton is too busy with her day job to take a long walk through the Shadowwoods, up the Darkcliff Mountains, over the Duskdoom Bridge and into the dragon's lair just for a passionate night of ecstasy...
You're thinking too complicated here. Obviously them Dragons are just being true to their stereotype and blackmailing all the nearby kingdoms/villages/whatnut to send them sacrificial virgins. Which then cease to be virgins in rather short order, thus explaining all those Half-Dragons.
all considered, I think the overall quality of a setting is more important than it's originality factor. Just because something is new does not mean it is good. more often than not, new things seem to depend on novelty and a cheap "wow" factor than substantial quality. In contrast, a classical good vs. evil fable, while not entirely original, can be incredible if well written and well thought-out.
Quote from: Leetzall considered, I think the overall quality of a setting is more important than it's originality factor. Just because something is new does not mean it is good. more often than not, new things seem to depend on novelty and a cheap "wow" factor than substantial quality. In contrast, a classical good vs. evil fable, while not entirely original, can be incredible if well written and well thought-out.
I suppose this is kind of just a different approach to what I was trying to get at. You see, "well-written and well thought-out" really, in my mind, means taking at least a slightly fresh angle, even if it's only a stylistic one, otherwise it would tend to be considered more of a pastiche than a well-written piece in its own right.
Also, I find it interesting, in a community mostly working in the fantasy genre, that you refer to the "wow" factor as being cheap. In my mind, that's what the whole of fantasy is about!
Generally, i feel that standard issue fantasy is overdone as is. Writing fantasy (settings or not) should be an exploration of imagination, originality and creativity, and yet we revert to the defaults of elves, dwarves and dragons. I know, this is what we grew up with, and it has a certain nostalgic charm to it, but I think we can do better (and most of us do).
That being said, my primary dislikes:
- Proven Gods (many of you may have heard me rant along with others on this subject before)
- standard issue races without serious twists
- Dragons (nothing bad about them as such... there are just so damn many everywhere!)
- Unimaginative and universal magic (where magic ceases to be "something" and just becomes a wild card equivalent to anything really)
- Semi-realistic medieval feudal worlds (if anything has been done to death, this is it. At least throw some spice in there somewhere)
- template planes (the Plane of X has never worked, and never will work)
Generally, many roleplayers seem to be suffering to a D&D addiction, where they have difficulty thinking beyond what can be put together with that basic toolset. (this view is mostly based on my experiences with the people I've been playing with over the last few years).
All of this might of course just come down to my short attention span and need for novelty :D
I really need to get Mare Eternus done. If fantasy is dragons and elves and universal magic then it's so anti-fantasy it isn't even funny.
Quote from: KindlingQuote from: Leetzall considered, I think the overall quality of a setting is more important than it's originality factor. Just because something is new does not mean it is good. more often than not, new things seem to depend on novelty and a cheap "wow" factor than substantial quality. In contrast, a classical good vs. evil fable, while not entirely original, can be incredible if well written and well thought-out.
I suppose this is kind of just a different approach to what I was trying to get at. You see, "well-written and well thought-out" really, in my mind, means taking at least a slightly fresh angle, even if it's only a stylistic one, otherwise it would tend to be considered more of a pastiche than a well-written piece in its own right.
Also, I find it interesting, in a community mostly working in the fantasy genre, that you refer to the "wow" factor as being cheap. In my mind, that's what the whole of fantasy is about!
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to get at. Lord of the Rings, for example, is not original. it takes a huge number of sources, especially Nordic and Saxon mythology, but they are put together extremely well. There is nothing inherently terrible with a setting of mountainy dwarves, foresty elves, and mean orcs as long as it is well-written (in a literary sense) and thought through.
and by "wow" factor, I mean cheap thrills that may make a reader think "huh, that's kinda neat" but are soon forgotten. elemental races (water elves, fire dwarves) fall under this category. so would things like adding wings to something, making an evil version of a race, modifying alignments, and other things like that. (that being said, if a change along those lines is essential and fits with a settings tone and style, well that's another story)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowGenerally, many roleplayers seem to be suffering to a D&D addiction, where they have difficulty thinking beyond what can be put together with that basic toolset. (this view is mostly based on my experiences with the people I've been playing with over the last few years).
YES YES YES. (also, maybe some consulting action? eh eh ;)?)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowGenerally, i feel that standard issue fantasy is overdone as is.
That's only because the genre of Fantasy was pirated from the collected works Tolkien with a re-jiggered (though derivative) history and a heavier emphasis on Medieval European culture.
I wonder what could be distilled from a brainstorming of what the essence of fantasy is without reaching the level of alienation? For although some very fantastical work can be created-- the reason that the Tolkienesque milieu is so popular is because the tropes and images of it are familiar and to some extent universal. Things that are too strange- Mieville or Clive Barker's work-- can be ignored out of hand for being too difficult to understand.
General fiction always has it easier than fantasy, because reality exists and the general author can make assumptions in the text. A fantasy author cannot- or if they do, then they are called derivative of tolkein. a true fantasy author needs to invent a lot. Thankfully Tolkein already invented a great deal that permeated world culture. (Even though I and others have some question as to his literary merit- his cultural contributions cannot be denied.)
I am often impressed by some of the fantastical worlds here and I suppose that many may have good advice to impart.
Quote from: Leetzand by "wow" factor, I mean cheap thrills that may make a reader think "huh, that's kinda neat" but are soon forgotten. elemental races (water elves, fire dwarves) fall under this category. so would things like adding wings to something, making an evil version of a race, modifying alignments, and other things like that. (that being said, if a change along those lines is essential and fits with a settings tone and style, well that's another story)
Things that are too strange- Mieville or Clive Barker's work-- can be ignored out of hand for being too difficult to understand.
[/quote]
As a Miéville fan, I find that sentence a little hard to stomach. Don't you think it a little harsh to say something should be ignored out of hand? Especially for the reason you give. Too difficult to understand? I have to ask what it is about his work that you find hard to understand? I don't mean to sound confrontational about this, but I'm just generally quite shocked at that statement. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the context you put that sentence in.
Actually I like Mieville and Barker, but many people avoid them simply because they find it difficult to place their wonderful creations in context.
I was not saying that I did not understand his work or dislike it.
Speaking of weird or strange, you may have noticed that I aspire to be sort of the Lewis Carroll of this place... which is fairly hard to be given the amazing inventiveness of this place-- but I think I've made good progress towards that. (see: Tatterdemalion and Vreeg's chatbox comment "I think Lewis Carroll inhabits you, LD)
My comment, thus, was about walking that fine line and not alienating one's readers, but still creating a believable world. Steerpike made some comments about that in one previous thread as well.
Without context, it's hard to create believable fantasy.
But making things too inventive or strange tends to cause reader resistance.
Quote from: Light DragonWithout context, it's hard to create believable fantasy.
But making things too inventive or strange tends to cause reader resistance.
Yet Sci-Fi is often built upon the odd and weird. I suppose it has more to do with one's expectations. If you see fantasy, you want Swords, Magic and Kings...
Sci-Fi's odd and weird however is grounded in logic and well, Science, so there is far less objection to it. I would figure that is how it gets away with things like that.
Then again, Star Trek establishes a lot of the terminology- such as "warp drives" and "jump gates" that is then used without invention by other sci-fi series.
And as a third prong- sci-fi is still considered niche. Not as niche as fantasy, since sci-fi could actually happen, and that's probably why it's more respectable. But it is still niche.
Quote from: Light DragonSci-Fi's odd and weird however is grounded in logic and well, Science, so there is far less objection to it. I would figure that is how it gets away with things like that.
Then again, Star Trek establishes a lot of the terminology- such as "warp drives" and "jump gates" that is then used without invention by other sci-fi series.
And as a third prong- sci-fi is still considered niche. Not as niche as fantasy, since sci-fi could actually happen, and that's probably why it's more respectable. But it is still niche.
Star Trek doesn't have Jump Gates (that's more Babylon 5). Plus in terms of direction, most sci-fi keeps the term 'warp drive' at arms length, preferring the more generic term of 'Hyper Drive' and 'Hyper Space'. If anything Star Trek's endearing contribution to sci-fi would be Transporters and Shields. Both of which show up regularly in Sci-Fi (especially the biggest Sci-Fi franchise of the last decade - Stargate).
At any rate Sci-Fi isn't as niche as Fantasy because Sci-Fi is a more broad genre than Fantasy, appealing not just to the D&D crowds but also to academics (or people going to school) as well as people who are generally interested in the final frontier. You can go from (early) Stargate which is plausible near future to the Gundam series which is an imagining of a fantastical near-future to Star Trek which is an idealized vision of the future to Star Wars which is centuries, if not a millennia, ahead of where we are today.
Of course the same can be said of fantasy (Greco-Roman to Medieval to Renaissance to Age of Discovery to Foreign-versions of these eras) but in the end they all wind up looking fairly similar (Castles, shacks, swords and magic).
Quote from: Elemental_ElfAt any rate Sci-Fi isn't as niche as Fantasy because Sci-Fi is a more broad genre than Fantasy, appealing not just to the D&D crowds but also to academics (or people going to school) as well as people who are generally interested in the final frontier. You can go from (early) Stargate which is plausible near future to the Gundam series which is an imagining of a fantastical near-future to Star Trek which is an idealized vision of the future to Star Wars which is centuries, if not a millennia, ahead of where we are today.
Not sure how it tallies out in all forms of media (video games/movies/TV/etc), but in novels and other similar written fiction "Fantasy" is *much* less niche then science fiction. There's actually quite a big gap there.
Apologies, Light Dragon. I wrote that reply very late at night and I think your phrasing had led me to jump to the wrong conclusions about the intent behind your statement.
On a slightly related note, isn't it amazing that we can spend a whole thread, such as this, all more-or-less agreeing with each other, and still find interesting things to say and contributions to make? That has to be one of the things I like best about the CBG :D
Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd say that while in the beginning sci-fi tended to be, just as it said, science fiction, in other words grounded in some sort of scientific plausibility, it has become increasingly more akin to fantasy, as the actual technological elements are hand-waved or so far removed from any modern technologies that aren't in heavily theoretical stages that it becomes more of a "magical" device within the setting. You press the button and it just works.
So really, with the exception of "hard" sci-fi, I don't see there being a huge difference between sci-fi and fantasy in terms of logic and suspension of disbelief.
Soooo many things I want to discuss...this thread it's turning out even better than I expected :) . Let's start:
a)
[quote Light Dragon]
Without context, it's hard to create believable fantasy.
But making things too inventive or strange tends to cause reader resistance.
[/quote]
Yet Sci-Fi is often built upon the odd and weird. I suppose it has more to do with one's expectations. If you see fantasy, you want Swords, Magic and Kings...
[/quote]
On a slightly related note, isn't it amazing that we can spend a whole thread, such as this, all more-or-less agreeing with each other, and still find interesting things to say and contributions to make? That has to be one of the things I like best about the CBG
[/quote]
Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd say that while in the beginning sci-fi tended to be, just as it said, science fiction, in other words grounded in some sort of scientific plausibility, it has become increasingly more akin to fantasy, as the actual technological elements are hand-waved or so far removed from any modern technologies that aren't in heavily theoretical stages that it becomes more of a "magical" device within the setting. You press the button and it just works.
[/quote]
I agree to some extent; sci-fi (like you described) and fantasy don't differ as much because actually (IMHO), the first one is actually "futuristic" fantasy while the second is "medieval" fantasy. So in effect, "hard" sci-fi it's nothing more than "proper" sci-fi.
Quote from: LlumNot sure how it tallies out in all forms of media (video games/movies/TV/etc), but in novels and other similar written fiction "Fantasy" is *much* less niche then science fiction. There's actually quite a big gap there.
Right now Fantasy is more popular thanks in large part to Pirates-Potter-LotR-Drizzt-WoW but 10 years ago, Fantasy was fairly unpopular by comparison. It's just a pendulum, which thanks to Avatar, I think will be swinging Sci-Fi's way in the coming years.
Though the release of the WoW expansion and TES V as well as the Hobbit may curb Sci-Fi's growth.
Don't forget the Twilight/vampire wave. They are part of the fantasy niche whether we want them to or not :p
Also, maybe it would be worthwhile to speak of hard and soft fantasy in the same way that one speaks of hard and soft sci-fi. DnD would in that sense be deemed soft while I reckon that Mieville (due to his sciency approach) and Tolkien (due to his fairly low magic approach) could be called hard. Mind you, I'm just thinking out loud here and haven't applied any thorough analysis to the three.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowDon't forget the Twilight/vampire wave. They are part of the fantasy niche whether we want them to or not :p
Also, maybe it would be worthwhile to speak of hard and soft fantasy in the same way that one speaks of hard and soft sci-fi. DnD would in that sense be deemed soft while I reckon that Mieville (due to his sciency approach) and Tolkien (due to his fairly low magic approach) could be called hard. Mind you, I'm just thinking out loud here and haven't applied any thorough analysis to the three.
Ah Twilight, the shimmering red-haired black-sheep bastard child of fantasy...
At any rate I'd say things like Harry Potter, Escaflowne, Narnia and Twilight are soft fantasy because they mix a lot of real-world in with their fantasy, while D&D, Legend of the Seeker and LotR are hard because they rely much less on the real world (i.e. if the real world is involved then it isn't as blatant as the soft fantasies) and exist in a (mostly) fictional world. Otherwise, the entire distinction becomes a de facto High and Low Fantasy.
EDIT: Fantasy is, in many ways the opposite of Sci-Fi, so hard fantasy should be truely fantastical while the more down to earth/real world stories should be soft because they exist in a realm that mixes the fantastic with mundane.
Don't forget Battlefield Earth :p If you're going to start throwing around the Twilight word, I'm going to throw that one around somewhere too.
Also, I consider science fiction to be a subset of fantasy, the same way I treat historical fiction. That's just me though, and I'm weird. The typical "fantasy" I call "sword and sorcery"
M.
Quote from: CheomeshAlso, I consider science fiction to be a subset of fantasy, the same way I treat historical fiction. That's just me though, and I'm weird. The typical "fantasy" I call "sword and sorcery"
But sword & sorcery is a subgenre of fantasy in its own right. From wikipedia:
Sword and sorcery (S&S) is a fantasy subgenre generally characterized by swashbuckling heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters.Stuff like Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Elric, Kane, Thongor, Krull, and so on...
Quote from: Luminous_Crayonmagic and technology are set up as equals and opposites, grudge match time
i wouldn't qualify this as a cliche, imo that's a valid driving factor of a world or even a conflict, more of a trope. if you boil it down, magic kinda stands for chaos, freedom, spirituality, and preservance of old traditions, while technology represents order, rules, reglementations, progressive spirit and so on. best example: arcanum - of steamworks and magick obscura. sure, it's been done before, but it's still more original than good vs evil.
just some cliches i'd like to add to the mix:
- "always chaotic evil" in the sense of evil being totally socially dysfunctional to the point where evil = sociopathic rage+slaughter
- "league of evil" the opposite: we work together because we are evil. no common agenda, no shared beliefs, except everyone's a douche. this only works on a small scale, like a city's outcasts or the schoolyard bullies.
- "cultivated vampires" it was cool in the hammer horror times and we really had a blast when our group had a sidequest around a lord something who "does not drink vine", dresses in outdated finery and bids you to "enter, of your own free will". but seriously, that was overdone when we hit the nineties and should only be used in affectionate parody.
- "the EVIL empire" or as i think of it "eragon-syndrom": the established (and reviled) form of state is a non-hereditary monarchy. and it's evil, because it does terrible things like enforce taxes, draft men in times of war and retaliates against acts of terrorrism. i have seen a goatload of campaigns and adventures, where after some time fighting "the enemy" you start to wonder why you are even rebelling in the first place.
Quote from: Scholar...magic kinda stands for chaos, freedom, spirituality, and [preservation] of old traditions, while technology represents order, rules, [regimentation's], progressive spirit and so on.
But those in and of themselves are still only cliches. Magic can be just as rigid and rule-laden as science is. In most generic magic systems, doing X always results in Y - you can't get more un-chaotic than that. DnD magic (arcane at least) is totally based on around rules, study, and practice. Sure, the Sorcerer class has innate magic, but it is still just a different delivery of the same system.
And while science does rely on a set of governing rules and theories - gravity and friction, for instance - most inventors, especially the early ones, were the epitome of free thinking, creative individuals which supports your progressive spirit, but not the image of disciplined, conservative craftsmen.
Ah, Arcanum. Great game.
Anyway, while putting magic and technology on different sides of a schism is a bit cliched, the interaction between the two schools of thought can be interesting. Either when they harmonize or clash. The reason magic and technology are often seen as opposing forces is possibly because the purpose of magic is to break the laws of nature, which is just what science seeks to study. But in a way, science also seeks to bend the rules or at least take them to their extreme.
Quote from: Cataclysmic Crowthe purpose of magic is to break the laws of nature
Broadly speaking as we are, I don't think we can take any of these things for granted.
Indeed, for Celtricia Magic is the embodiment of the Natural Law.
And as for ancient traditions, Magic also serves as Science, the embodiment of progress.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowThe reason magic and technology are often seen as opposing forces is possibly because the purpose of magic is to break the laws of nature, which is just what science seeks to study. But in a way, science also seeks to bend the rules or at least take them to their extreme.
that's what i was trying to say. with magic ~ chaos, i don't mean it's random or unstructured, but it breaks the fundamental laws of nature/physics, especially those concerning conservation of energy and creation of matter from essentially nothing (are these the right phrases? english isn't my first language), which sets it dead on against science. again, this is my personal interpretation, but magic is, well, magical *because* it defies those laws. if magic can be scientifically explained, it ceases to be magic and becomes "The Art", "Science", or "Applied Physics".
Quote from: Scholarif magic can be scientifically explained, it ceases to be magic and becomes "The Art", "Science", or "Applied Physics".
Who says, exactly?
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: Scholarif magic can be scientifically explained, it ceases to be magic and becomes "The Art", "Science", or "Applied Physics".
The definition of magic does :P
Quote from: NomadicThe definition of magic does :P
What definition, now? I was under the impression that we were discussing a fictional thing, that has been and will continue to be treated differently by every culture and every writer that approaches it. It's no good trying to speak authoritatively on a fictional topic like that.
If you want to write a world where magic is the force that binds protons together within the atomic nucleus, then fine, awesome, I'd read that. If you want to write a world where magic is the residue left over from leprechaun boogers and pixie farts, more power to you. But regardless of how you want to approach it, trying to act like it
always works a certain way-- across the board, no matter who's writing it or why-- is absolutely ridiculous.
I am quite astonished at some of the broad-brush definitionmaking going on in this thread; it is pretty shocking the way some people are taking a topic as wide-open as
magic and being so prescriptivist about it.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonBut regardless of how you want to approach it, trying to act like it always works a certain way-- across the board, no matter who's writing it or why-- is absolutely ridiculous.
I am quite astonished at some of the broad-brush definition-making going on in this thread; it is pretty shocking the way some people are taking a topic as wide-open as magic and being so prescriptivist about it.
I second this.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: NomadicThe definition of magic does :P
What definition, now? I was under the impression that we were discussing a fictional thing, that has been and will continue to be treated differently by every culture and every writer that approaches it. It's no good trying to speak authoritatively on a fictional topic like that.
If you want to write a world where magic is the force that binds protons together within the atomic nucleus, then fine, awesome, I'd read that. If you want to write a world where magic is the residue left over from leprechaun boogers and pixie farts, more power to you. But regardless of how you want to approach it, trying to act like it always works a certain way-- across the board, no matter who's writing it or why-- is absolutely ridiculous.
I am quite astonished at some of the broad-brush definitionmaking going on in this thread; it is pretty shocking the way some people are taking a topic as wide-open as magic and being so prescriptivist about it.
Magic is by definition a particular thing. If that thing isn't what we're talking about we should stop using the word as it has no meaning save what each individual believes and at that point there isn't mush use discussing things where it could be any number of things depending upon the person :P
Quote from: CheomeshDon't forget Battlefield Earth :p
I hear people making fun of that movie alot, but I don't see any real huge problems with it. It got REALLY annoying how much the aliens looked like humans, though.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsmana logical fallacy[/url], it's also a little condescending!
Should you reread what I said you will note that I was being facetious.