|
While all the criticism in this thread probably won't make me enjoy these books any less (if I've read them) I am really enjoying the discussion. Good critique of Banks though calling them "redundant and sleazily exploitative adventure fiction novels" is a bit much. Maybe he just doesn't think a liberal utopia is possible and his novels reflect that. Maybe we live in a universe where not everything is possible and a liberal utopia is one of those impossibilities.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
I just want to say that the Titus Groan reading was excellent and I wish more people would read that book. This is a good thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Enjoying the thread. Is this a one-man dunk zone or can I write an angry David Weber post?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
If you dare!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Alright, cool. Now I have to reread Safehold as I remember flushing much of it...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Screw it, it's past 1 am, I'm hyped on caffeine and can't get to sleep, and I have the book open on Kindle Cloud reader going off memory. What could possibly go wrong? Weber posted:But then, ten years ago, a Federation survey ship had found evidence of the first confirmed advanced nonhuman civilization. No one knew what that civilization’s citizens had called themselves, because none of them were still alive to tell anyone. Humanity had been shocked by the discovery that an entire species had been deliberately destroyed. That a race capable of fully developing and exploiting the resources of its home star system had been ruthlessly wiped out. The first assumption had been that the species in question had done it to itself in some sort of mad spasm of suicidal fury. Indeed, some of the scientists who’d studied the evidence continued to maintain that that was the most likely explanation. Those holdouts, however, were a distinct minority. Most of the human race had finally accepted the second, and far more horrifying, hypothesis. They hadn’t done it to themselves; someone else had done it to them. Fofão didn’t know who’d labeled the hypothetical killers the Gbaba, and he didn’t much care. But the realization that they might exist was the reason there was a genuine and steadily growing Federation Navy these days. The premise of the Safehold series (there are 9 books and growing!) is quickly established in the first book: a band of genocidal aliens, the Gbaba, launched a war of extinction against humanity. The last of the human fleet sacrificed itself to get one last colony ship out to Bumfuck, Nowhere. However, a split occurred between the people who believed humanity should give up technology to hide from the Gbaba and the people who believed that that was a really bad idea. The former took over the colony, set up an orbital bombardment system designed to fire on anything that it detected as too hi-tech, and brainwashed everyone into believing God hated technology and that the leaders responsible for this were actually gods. However, the pro-tech faction managed to save one Nimue Alban, "one of the more brilliant tactical officers the Terran Federation Navy had ever produced" and put her into a robot body to teach the future about technology and aliens. Not only does she have a robot body which is personally invulnerable, but her backers thoughtfully managed to save 200 assault rifles, an AI, a ton of nearly invisible surveillance drones, a university library...all of which is dropped into the planet's equivalent of Napoleonic Wars. The planet is ruled by an oppressive church based on the bullshit spewed by the anti-tech faction, and it falls to Nimue (changed into a man and calling herself Merlin) and the nation of not-Great Britain to create new technology and win a giant war against the Church of God Awaiting. If this sounds familiar Weber actually wrote a book with this exact same premise in 1996, down to the church banning technology to hide from genocidal aliens. The first book in Safehold was published in 2007. The problem then, as it is now, is that this is entirely a wish-fulfillment fantasy with no nuance or meaning. The church is a band of bad guys who spread their dogma to keep power and suppress invention because their dogma told them too. Merlin saves the crown prince of not-Britain and is welcomed into the highest confidences of the royal family. The church is ruled by a council of unelected bad guys, not-England is ruled by a hereditary monarchy with a wise monarch with "presence". The bad guys basically never win any fight or pose any real threat because Merlin's spy drones and constant drip of inventions keep the good guys well informed and outgunning their enemies. Let's compare this to A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Is it fair? No. Am I going to do it anyway? Yes. The main character of Yankee, a worker at an arms factory, is transported to the past in an accident and winds up in King Arthur's court. He ends up convincing everyone he is a powerful sorcerer by correctly predicting an eclipse and using fireworks to extort King Arthur into making him "the Boss", basically second-in-command and de facto ruler of the entire country. The Boss has an excellent knowledge of 19th-century weapons technology (among other things) and uses it to modernize the period. One of Twain's major themes is that even though The Boss's technology is superior, he is much worse morally than the denizens of Arthur's time. The Boss uses his knowledge of the future to taunt peasants about economics, seize power, and gun down people who can't fight back (in a tournament no less). Arthur, on the other hand, is a brave man who doesn't hesitate to comfort a contagious sick woman even if it would cost him his own health. Even Merlin, the Boss' archenemy, simply uses his magic to send the Boss back to his own time rather than murder him outright (after The Boss slaughters tons of his knights with machine guns). Yes, the hence-unforeseen church turns against the technology once Arthur dies and removes The Boss' powerbase and sends a force of knights to defeat him, but this war isn't the theme or focus of the work. There is no epic battle of science vs religious ignorance, simply knights being destroyed by machine guns. The core conflict of ignorance and gullibility vs 19th-century knowledge isn't something you can solve with machines or force, and the attempt to do so ends in a massacre and eventual reversion to the status quo. However, Weber's central conflict is the Church's dogma vs the human spirit and desire for progress, and it just doesn't work. The central conflict here is man vs man, and it falls flat on its face because the antagonists aren't remotely threatening. The villains are hilariously outclassed and incompetent as anything they try is picked up by Merlin's spy drones. There is no conflict as to whether Britain and Merlin's interests align perfectly because the church was planning a sneak attack on Britain at just the right time Merlin showed up, Merlin has no qualms about being a man except for accidentally getting an erection bathing with some dudes, none of the royals bother to ask why they can't just skip to AK-47s and save a ton of British lives, people don't try to reconcile a belief in God with the new revelations. The British discard all religious belief overnight, crush every Church force sent against them, and are never in any serious danger. Hot queens marry into the royal family and contribute more troops, the Church's forces are poorly equipped, make bad decisions, and never seem to figure out that Merlin's spying on them. Merlin starts a half-assed scientific revolution where she provides many of the answers, but no one ever thinks to question political or social structures aside from The Church Being Bad. The plot is routinely interrupted by 2-page infodumps about future tech and the good guys cannot fail because Merlin drags any pretense of dramatic tension behind the woodshed and executes it. Merlin could seriously just end the conflict at any time by single-handedly eradicating the church and getting humanity ready to fight the Gbaba, but she doesn't do that and gets a bunch of British killed for no good reason. The conflict as symbolism for religion vs science falls flat on its face because the church's religion is easily proven false by the records Merlin has. The existential threat of the Gbaba is ignored by all the characters in favor of dunking on a group of bad guys set up to fail. The end result is nothing more than a puerile power fantasy that has all the subtlety of 5-year-old me giving the good lego men spaceships and laser cannon and the bad lego men swords. The bad guys are all power-hungry schemers or men of conscience trapped in the bad guy cause, the good guys are all perfect people whom everyone loves, and there is literally no reason to turn this into a 9-book series because the author managed to write it as a single book already! The only comparison I can really make is Atlas Shrugged, where the moochers have no chance in hell at beating John Galt and his strikers, and are set up as straw men to be knocked down like this fictional religion. I can discuss prose and the stupidity of the setting if people wish as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:I just want to say that the Titus Groan reading was excellent and I wish more people would read that book. This is a good thread. i'm most looking forward to the third book of the trilogy because it's apparently a complete mess but in like an outsider art kind of way (even more than the first two) because the author was actively dying as he wrote it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i'm reading it now
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
I think Titus Alone is still really good, the editor apparently really hosed it up, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
gormenghast verdict: loving insane poetic/evocative writing by the current crop of sf/f dorks is masturbatory at best, however peake has slow deep majestic sex with the english language right there on the page in front of you and he's not even ashamed
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
There's arguments over magical realism and fantasy, which is one thing (Personally, I feel it's usually best delineated by magical realism being weird thematic poo poo sometimes happening in an otherwise grounded setting, while fantasy is where supernatural/paranormal elements are an inherent and consistent part of the fictional world. Of course, I imagine some lines can be thin, and it could be entirely possible to have magical realism in a fantasy setting) but that does make me wonder; when does a story stop being Fantasy and start being Horror, or vice-versa? Is It or The Shining fantasy or magical realism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:There's arguments over magical realism and fantasy, which is one thing (Personally, I feel it's usually best delineated by magical realism being weird thematic poo poo sometimes happening in an otherwise grounded setting, while fantasy is where supernatural/paranormal elements are an inherent and consistent part of the fictional world that's not the definition of magical realism Since it seems to come up Magical realism is a synthesis of fantastical elements into the realist style in a way which overturns reader expectations and creates a context in which we are forced to reckon with the otherworldliness of the normal reality through making the fantastical itself mundane Ergo, why Aureliano Buendia remembers the ice. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
I know the meanings of words pretty well and magical realism is when there is magic in the real, for example in The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:...the antagonists aren't remotely threatening. Agreed TheGreatEvilKing posted:The villains are hilariously outclassed and incompetent as anything they try is picked up by Merlin's spy drones. Yep TheGreatEvilKing posted:There is no conflict as to whether Britain and Merlin's interests align perfectly because the church was planning a sneak attack on Britain at just the right time Merlin showed up Wasn't really a sneak attack, wasn't going to happen for a few more decades if I remember right, but Merlin kicked up the timetable because reasons. TheGreatEvilKing posted:Merlin has no qualms about being a man except for accidentally getting an erection bathing with some dudes Book wasn't really about this not really sure why Nimue wasn't just male to begin with though  TheGreatEvilKing posted:none of the royals bother to ask why they can't just skip to AK-47s and save a ton of British lives TheGreatEvilKing posted:people don't try to reconcile a belief in God with the new revelations. The British discard all religious belief overnight, crush every Church force sent against them, and are never in any serious danger. What are you talking about? They worked hard to interrupt the scriptures in a different manner and actually used the scripture to argue that they were right and the church was wrong, the only book they disagreed with heavily was the book of Shueler or however you spelled it. TheGreatEvilKing posted:Hot queens marry into the royal family and contribute more troops, the Church's forces are poorly equipped, make bad decisions, and never seem to figure out that Merlin's spying on them. Merlin starts a half-assed scientific revolution where she provides many of the answers, but no one ever thinks to question political or social structures aside from The Church Being Bad. TheGreatEvilKing posted:The plot is routinely interrupted by 2-page infodumps about future tech and the good guys cannot fail because Merlin drags any pretense of dramatic tension behind the woodshed and executes it. DavidWeberBooks.txt TheGreatEvilKing posted:Merlin could seriously just end the conflict at any time by single-handedly eradicating the church and getting humanity ready to fight the Gbaba, but she doesn't do that and gets a bunch of British killed for no good reason No, because just killing the church leaders would of been seen as a plot against the church by evil and would of strengthened the unity of the church and belief in it. They needed to make the church the Villian in the eyes of the people. TheGreatEvilKing posted:The conflict as symbolism for religion vs science falls flat on its face because the church's religion is easily proven false by the records Merlin has. The existential threat of the Gbaba is ignored by all the characters in favor of dunking on a group of bad guys set up to fail. TheGreatEvilKing posted:The end result is nothing more than a puerile power fantasy that has all the subtlety of 5-year-old me giving the good lego men spaceships and laser cannon and the bad lego men swords. The bad guys are all power-hungry schemers or men of conscience trapped in the bad guy cause, the good guys are all perfect people whom everyone loves, and there is literally no reason to turn this into a 9-book series because the author managed to write it as a single book already! The only comparison I can really make is Atlas Shrugged, where the moochers have no chance in hell at beating John Galt and his strikers, and are set up as straw men to be knocked down like this fictional religion. Fair enough and yeah I liked it better when it was one book too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
One thing I never understood is why fantasy fans talk about a consistent magical system as a benefit. If magic has rules it's not magic, its physics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:One thing I never understood is why fantasy fans talk about a consistent magical system as a benefit. If magic has rules it's not magic, its physics. There's a puzzle element. For example, most of the Harry Potter novels are basically mystery novels of the YA hardy boys / boarding school type, but with an overlay of extra "magic rules" that complicate the puzzle, so the answer isn't immediately obvious ("Mad-Eye Moody was Barty Crouch all along, under a polyjuice potion! And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!") Brandon Sanderson does this too -- most of his books are just puzzle novels where the magic system is the puzzle. So it's good for it to have consistent rules for the same reason that a genre detective novel is generally considered "superior" if the author gives you all the pieces of the puzzle in advance, rather than withholding key information until after the reveal, or changing the rules of the puzzle mid-narrative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:that's not the definition of magical realism Sure, but that doesn't really explicate how that differs from, say, Dresden Files, which is also 'realistic" but with "fantasy elements." Inescapable Duck posted:There's arguments over magical realism and fantasy, which is one thing (Personally, I feel it's usually best delineated by magical realism being weird thematic poo poo sometimes happening in an otherwise grounded setting, while fantasy is where supernatural/paranormal elements are an inherent and consistent part of the fictional world. Of course, I imagine some lines can be thin, and it could be entirely possible to have magical realism in a fantasy setting) but that does make me wonder; when does a story stop being Fantasy and start being Horror, or vice-versa? Is It or The Shining fantasy or magical realism? quote:Ultimately, literature is nothing but carpentry. With both you are working with reality, a material just as hard as wood. There's your difference. It's a matter of perspective and authorial intent. Marquez is using fantastic elements to highlight how strange and hosed up and changeable "reality" is, but is ultimately writing about and focused on "reality'. Butcher by contrast isn't focused on reality; he's writing a fictional narrative that isn't about "reality" at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
While that is true, and explains it, I don't think it quite addresses Mel's objection. Because yeah, it isn't really magical if it's that predictable. I have to think RPGs and video games have some hand in it. It makes sense for a game to have predictable systems because it's a game and truly magical things cannot happen. It'd be hard to believe people like Sanderson aren't heavily influenced by that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's your difference. It's a matter of perspective and authorial intent. Marquez is using fantastic elements to highlight how strange and hosed up and changeable "reality" is, but is ultimately writing about and focused on "reality'. Butcher by contrast isn't focused on reality; he's writing a fictional narrative that isn't about "reality" at all. That's just repeated what I already said tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:That's just repeated what I already said tho. Right i'm just spelling out the compare and contrast part of the argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Nakar posted:While that is true, and explains it, I don't think it quite addresses Mel's objection. Because yeah, it isn't really magical if it's that predictable. I have to think RPGs and video games have some hand in it. It makes sense for a game to have predictable systems because it's a game and truly magical things cannot happen. It'd be hard to believe people like Sanderson aren't heavily influenced by that. Yeah, that's my thing. Why bother having magic if its not going to have any of the properties of magic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
That's just a semantic quibble, though. There's a big chunk of readers that want a set of imaginary rules they can think their way around and use to construct/engage with drama, in a setting with certain aesthetic elements - swords, dragons, fireballs. This sort of setting is called 'fantasy' and the imaginary rules are called the 'magic' or 'magic system' and that there's other connotations associated with the word 'magic' in other contexts doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Peel posted:That's just a semantic quibble, though. There's a big chunk of readers that want a set of imaginary rules they can think their way around and use to construct/engage with drama, in a setting with certain aesthetic elements - swords, dragons, fireballs. This sort of setting is called 'fantasy' and the imaginary rules are called the 'magic' or 'magic system' and that there's other connotations associated with the word 'magic' in other contexts doesn't really matter. Its not a critique of semantics but instead a critique of narrative bankruptcy. Its pointing out the artistic emptiness of declaring your work fantastical and then toiling to make it as grounded as possible. The simple fact we allow fantasy to mean "medieval dragon poo poo" is itself a symbol of the lack of any real creativity in the genre
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Grounded elements and fantastical elements aren't necessarily in conflict; they can set each other off. Ideally, the fantasy elements are the painting, the realistic elements are the frame. Again, look at Harry Potter. There's not really much consistency to the magic of the Harry Potter universe, apart from "You gotta feel things really hard" which is perfect for teens because teens have so many emotions. But there's an illusion of consistency (pronunciation rules, component rules, interaction rules) that make the writing more dramatic and powerful. See, e.g., Dumbledore's battle with Voldemort at the end of, like, Book 5 -- Voldemort keeps throwing the "unblockable" death curse, and Dumbledore keeps beating and evading it -- mostly by dodging it or by summoning up "living" things to take the hit for him (conjured pet statues, etc). Technically it's following the rules, but it's also got the wish-fullfilment element of Dumbledore-as-Savior coming and breaking all the rules to save the day, magically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:See, e.g., Dumbledore's battle with Voldemort at the end of, like, Book 5 -- Voldemort keeps throwing the "unblockable" death curse, and Dumbledore keeps beating and evading it -- mostly by dodging it or by summoning up "living" things to take the hit for him (conjured pet statues, etc). Technically it's following the rules, but it's also got the wish-fullfilment element of Dumbledore-as-Savior coming and breaking all the rules to save the day, magically. It sounds lazy. There is nothing interesting about finding away around rules you yourself invented. I am not saying magic should be written as Calvinball. I am saying writers use the phrase magic as a fantastical mask for mundane ideas
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Like I think in terms of pure creativity, CS Lewis was among the best fantasy writers because he at least understood the inherent nature of the fantastical
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:It sounds lazy. There is nothing interesting about finding away around rules you yourself invented. Ok, how are you defining "magic" in this context? Or is the point that you aren't? Can you give me an example of a story that used "magic" well? Off the top of my head i'm having a hard time figuring out an example of the use of magic in fiction that meets your criteria. THere's always an element of rule-breaking. Mel Mudkiper posted:Like I think in terms of pure creativity, CS Lewis was among the best fantasy writers because he at least understood the inherent nature of the fantastical What I dislike about Lewis is that if you read him and you aren't six, the christian structure of everything becomes so transparent that there cease to be any surprises at all. It all follows Christian logic and Christian theology and Christian mores to the letter. It isn't even that creative -- the lion as a symbol for christ is all through medieval iconography. It's espeecially painful in his non-Narnia books. Midway through the space trilogy he runs out of ideas so utterly that he goes full Arthur and Merlin, which is the pit-stop emergency "out of gas" flag for fantasy writing. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, how are you defining "magic" in this context? Or is the point that you aren't? Can you give me an example of a story that used "magic" well? As I said, CS Lewis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, that's my thing. Why bother having magic if its not going to have any of the properties of magic? Sanderson has been very explicit on this. In his mind, the less you explain the magic and the less consistent it is, the less the magic can be used by the main characters to actually do things in the world and drive the plot. Contrast Gandalf (in a world where they never explain how magic works, Gandalf does very little explicitly magical).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Sanderson has been very explicit on this. In his mind, the less you explain the magic and the less consistent it is, the less the magic can be used by the main characters to actually do things in the world and drive the plot. Sanderson sounds like a tedious dullard
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I said, CS Lewis. Yeah, gotcha in an edit. Lewis just follows Christian rules throughout, it just seems "fantastical" because unless you study theology and even then Christian rules don't make sense. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Sanderson sounds like a tedious dullard His books are a universal slog. Nothing against the guy but he manages to make everything boring through reducing the interesting facets of anything to trivia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Its not a critique of semantics but instead a critique of narrative bankruptcy. I'm right there with you that most genre fantasy is hollow crank-turning rather than any kind of literature of imagination, but I've never been fond of focusing the complaint on a perceived failure of 'magic' to be 'magical'. It's a specific thing that a story could do to set itself apart from the Branderson style people love to hate, but a story could also do other things, like take up the human engagement with rigid laws as a theme in itself, or explore an interesting what-if scenario that happens to be categorised as fantasy rather than science fiction because it doesn't have spaceships. The focus on whether magic is 'magical' as the problem rather than a possibility feels like just another way to trap writing in gazing at its own navel and framing itself around its own marketing terms like 'magic' or 'fantasy' or 'science fiction' rather than first focusing on what you might want to achieve with a story and leaving librarians to argue over its genre classification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, gotcha in an edit. Lewis just follows Christian rules throughout, it just seems "fantastical" because unless you study theology and even then Christian rules don't make sense. That's the point! Magic is the separation of cause from effect. It is the impossibility of quantification. If you create a world where there are forces that exist that do not exist in our world, you have not made a fantastical world. You have merely imagined a world of different physics. Fantasy and magical worlds should be places where the tethers of logical consistency are severed, not simply remade. Why does a closet lead to another world? Because its loving MAGIC. Why does a stone table revive a lion? Because its loving MAGIC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I admire Sanderson's professional and hardworking attitude to writing and wish him well in completing his big fancy cosmic cycle thing, but I will never read any of his books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:That's the point! Why do warp drives work because it's loving MAGIC...err SCIENCE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
ShinsoBEAM! posted:Why do warp drives work because it's loving MAGIC...err SCIENCE. Nah, they still try to go "DILITHIUM CRYSTALS AND SPACE-TIME" If Scotty just said "This loving thing just goes faster than light sometimes I don't have a clue why" that would be what I am talking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:That's the point! That's the thing though: it's not magic that revives Aslan; it's Christian Physics: quote:"It means that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards." It seems like MAGIC because Christian theology is pretty whackadoodle, but within its parameters it's perfectly predictable. Of course Aslan comes back from the Stone Table. Aslan + table = Christ + Cross. It math. If you're pointing to truly fantastic things in Lewis I'd argue that the most fantastic element in all the Narnia books is the lamp-post. Why is there a lamp-post in Narnia? Why is there a faun beside a lamp-post? And then he goes and ruins even that a few books later by explaining its origin away in The Magician's Nephew. I think better examples of the sort of rule-breaking MAGIC you're talking about might be in either Johnathan Strange & Mr. Norrell or The Last Unicorn, but I think both of those have examples of rule-brekaing and loophole-finding, too. Ultimately I think you're drawing a false dichotomy; magic is about breaking or evading the Rules, and you have to make some rules in your story in order to break them afterwards. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's the thing though: it's not magic that revives Aslan; it's Christian Physics: Yes, I am aware. Just because there is a magic table that brings people to life when they sacrifice themselves on it for a traitor (which is the Christ allegory) doesn't mean there is any behind the scenes rationality for their being a random stone table in the middle of the woods that will revive the Christlion
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
The distinction between magic and technology in speculative settings is ultimately one of tone and implication, and the tone of magic slips a long way toward technology in 'magic system' style writing. This can be done deliberately - there's plenty of fantastical settings where characters have access to 'magitech'-styled airships and so on. People not liking this compared to something more numinous is a legitimate aesthetic preferance, but my complaint is with the implication or explication that this is a necessary aesthetic problem rather than a preference, and that genre fantasy's bankruptcy can be traced to this aesthetic decision rather than being of a part with a lot of romance being crappy crank-turning, a lot of thrillers being crappy crank-turning, etc. Genre fantasy authors could all be straining at the gills to produce atmospheres of mystery and wonder and it would still be mostly mediocre because that's how cultural mass production works in the early 3rd millennium, and that atmosphere of mystery and wonder would itself be a cliche I'd hope some forward thinking authors would try to unravel or look outside of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:11
|
|