Snip
I get what you're saying, and it mostly makes sense - magic is simply a different form of technology to them. Yeah, that works for me.
But, I think there's two issues we keep running into with it. The first is that we're using a definition of "science" and "technology" which is highly specific, and probably not being employed by others in the conversation. You've already had to explain to me that technology and science would be different for them, because they have different rules. But for some, when we think of magic, we think of things and feats that are not possible by our understanding of our world. Whether they're possible by the rules of the setting in question is somewhat irrelevant (And pretty moot, since obviously they're possible, though whether they adhere to the rules or not is another question) because we are limited by our perspective, and our perspective tells us that shooting fireballs out your fingerstips is magic, and any creative work that utilizes such a thing is fantasy. I mean - it's fiction. Everything about it, we create and we define. It's inherently bound by our perspective, and our understanding will take precedence over the in-universe understanding. Whether or not it's magical in-universe doesn't matter as much as whether or not it's magical out-of-universe - that's what many will use to draw the line between sci-fi and fantasy.
For instance, I was in the process of drafting up an essay in reply before I realized that I just... wasn't using the same definition as you. You've quoted a famous author guy, so let me quote on in return, as an example of what I considered scientific - "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." If it disappears when you stop believing in it, it's not science. Now, it's not necessarily magic either, but I'd consider science to be something constant, something that, if everyone in the world vanished, it'd still exist. It's not bound by perception, it simply is.
If you told me that that's only science under our definition and rules, a world with different rules would have different definitions, I'd say you're right. But I'd also say neither definition's really wrong, and at best all it'll get you is an argument of semantics - it just comes down to what perspective you're looking at it with.
Issue two - it ignores (Well, "ignores" isn't really right the word. It acknowledges this, but maybe stops too short.) the fact that, really, the division between magic and science - and by extension, between fantasy and sci-fi - is a pretty arbitrary one. "Magic" and "science" are often just by-words for "thing that makes the plot happen," dressed in different clothes and using different names, but the same essential story device, supplying all the neat gadgets and cool superpowers. Whether the scholars in the setting think scientifically or not doesn't matter as much as whether they call themselves mages or try to slip by the radar with science-y sounding words like "biotics." Star Wars, for instance - the Force is basically space magic. Don't "midochlorians" me, it's goddamn space magic. And the eluvians - they're just teleporters, basically. Make them a shiny chrome pad on the ground that shoots beams of light and it wouldn't look out of place on the Enterprise. If you're looking for a longer essay, I've always considered the Fade (And similar "magic realm that exists on a different level of reality") to basically be a fantasy version of outer space.
But the wider consumer base still find fantasy and sci-fi to not only be mutually exclusive, but inherently opposed. I think that's mostly where the idea that magic and technology are at odds comes from - because we consider magic to be the core of fantasy, science to be the core of sci-fi. If you started having technology and science, then you'd be sci-fi, and by common thinking, you can't be fantasy if you're sci-fi. I think we'll see more and more works that question this division (Shadowrun, Dishonored, Full Metal Alchemist, basically the entire steampunk genre, along with more niche genres like Weird West and Lovecraftian Horror.), but currently they're polar opposites. Magic and science carry the baggage of their whole genre - arguing that a mage is basically a scientist is shabbier clothes, while true, ignores that "mage" = "fantasy," and "scientist" = "sci-fi." It discards the context of those words and what they mean in the wider scheme of the story they feature in.
It's an extremely arbitrary division, but it also holds a lot of sway. If we divorce this discussion entirely from the tropes and elements of fiction, then I'd completely agree.
(Also sorry again for the huge wall of text.)
Edit: (Actually, after a bit of thought, I think there actually is one aspect of magic that makes it very different from sci-fi science, but explaining my thought in full would take a lot of space and isn't really relevant to the discussion, so, I'll keep quiet on it for now.)
Retour en haut
)
), human two-handed warrior, fiercely loyal, and well... basically the female human version of Bull in terms of she just likes smashing/killing things and is pretty laid back. Recommendations? I really am leaning towards Bull or Cullen. Sera I am saving because I plan on making her a female Qun'ari
