More on Magic (or ‘Magical Metaphors’):

Last post I talked about the subtle difference between Sci-fi and Fantasy, well, that wasn’t what I intended to talk about when I started writing last time. I meant to talk about the ways in which Magic works in fantasy, and how this reflects on the narratives in which the Magic is used.

Rowling’s Magic is Intellect: J.K. Rowling, author of the very famous Harry Potter series, places her power in words and intellect. Like her setting, a magical school, the magic in her novel is meant to impart intelligence. Ravenclaw and Slytherin are both depictions of intellect and valued as 2 out of four elements within the school. Rowling is important because she defines knowledge along a spectrum: there is good knowledge, or pure knowledge, which is Ravenclaw’s focus, and there is bad knowledge, or abused knowledge which is the Slytherin aspect. Gryffindor to me, is creativity, despite Rowling identifying their major trait as courage. And this is important: despite Rowling identifying intellect and determination as important, she focuses more fully on creativity and courage. Ravenclaw and Slytherin certainly offer ability, but Gryffindor offers application. And finally, an idea which has been noted by others before me: I like Rowling because she allows for mediocrity within her narrative. Hufflepuff, it can be widely agreed, is the house for those who didn’t get into the other three. Helga Hufflepuff was said to accept anyone into her house, and they are depicted as ‘exceptionally good finders,’ whatever that means. But Rowling uses this mediocrity to great effect! First, she allows Cedric Digory to rise above mediocrity and become the star of the Tri-wizard tournament. And then she kills him. It’s a powerful death because it implies that he has risen beyond his station, and was nothing but a bystander. Even as I write this I’ve discarded several pages on Rowling, but suffice to say it is the weakness of her magic which makes it compelling: it cannot create food; a gun, the internet agrees, would be much more useful in a head-to-head conflict, and some enemies are simply immune (Giants). Rowling teaches us that Intellect, Application and Creativity are the best qualities to have. She also teaches us that these are qualities some are born with, but that anyone can learn. And finally, she seperates Love from all of these attributes, and places it on a level all its own.

Tolkien’s Magic is Power: Tolkien’s magic is subtle, it drives his plot where needed, and it provides spectacle, but it is not the focus of his world. Tom Bombadil is my favourite character from the Fellowship of the Ring because he points out the limitations of spectacle – when Frodo dons the rings in his presence Tom Bombadil sees straight through its magical effect. The next example of explicit magic comes when Gandalf faces the Balrog. In all cases, great and powerful magic is wielded by evil, and overcome by the far weaker magic of Gandalf, or resisted by those such as Frodo and Samwise who have no magic of their own. Gandalf’s magic, it should be pointed out, is not of spectacle, and the purpose of this depiction, to me, is to identify thought and wisdom as more important than raw power. Gandalf blinds his enemies, talks to moths, and breaks Saruman’s staff; none of these are to be scoffed at, but none are truly powerful forms of magic. Tolkien teaches us that it is more important to apply wisely and intelligently the power you have, rather than to grasp for a power you cannot control, or a power that corrupts. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely, anyone?)

Guy Gavriel Kay’s Magic is Time: Guy Gavriel Kay got my attention when he helped write the Silmarillion alongside Christopher Tolkien. It quickly became clear that the only parts of that novel which were tolerable, were those written by Kay. Later I read at the suggestion of my uncle, a novel by Kay called Tigana, which will stay in my heart as one of my favourite pieces of literature. Tigana is the story of a city which was erased from the memory of everyone in the realm because someone killed a wizard’s son – which is almost never a good idea. The point is, Kay depicts magical use as limited – use it too fast or to frequently and it gets all used up. He makes an implied comparison between time and magic. The things we use our time on, and things which magic are used on are similar, and Kay uses this comparison within Tigana to show us what we should be using our time on. Vengeance is one wizard’s goal in the novel, and the other’s is conquest. Both of these are put in a poor light by Kay, and these two passions bring about the downfall of each of the wizards. There is a significant emphasis placed on honouring one’s heritage, which comes out in some of Kay’s other works: Ysabell, for instance, or the Fionavar tapestry, and there is a definite link of magic to spirituality, especially in the Fionavar tapestries with Peytr. Kay’s novels would lead us to believe that family, heritage and natural beauty are to be appreciated beyond other things, but also that Time is to be used wisely.

And here, I will leave this analysis, which I am counting as my Friday post, despite posting it late Thurs. I can post more on this topic if there is any interest and would love to hear suggestions of what other magical depictions to look at. If there isn’t any interest, I’ll post on writing techniques next week (Monday).

On Magic

Fiction writing is based on 'What-Ifs'. the what if I've been working with a lot lately has been, "What if limitless power was granted to a limited individual - would the limits of the individual then limit the power? And could an individual overcome human limitations if granted godly power. In short: would a human make a God's power human, or would the power make the human a God?"

Now, the point of this post is not to examine that question, but rather to examine the questions our works ask, in general, and ask some questions of our work in turn.

Recently I've been asked for school to examine the differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy, and I've come to a very simple realization: Science Fiction seems to be any work that was created with a 'what-if' in mind that seems very plausible, or likely to happen in the near or even far distant future. Fantasy novels work with an entirely different set of 'what-ifs' that seem not to be able to be played out in our reality. For this reason I've had to look at my own work in a very harsh light, especially while attempting to enter the publishing scene: Is my story fantasy, or sci-fi? Its certainly steampunk, but does that tell us anything? Not really. And it certainly has elements that could easily be attributed to either sci-fi or fantasy - I call the magic wielded in the story 'Chemical Magic' and personally feel that my work appeals more easily to the sci-fi audience, from a purely marketing standpoint. The problem is the threshold at which you give credibility to a novel as 'based in science'. While the magic in my novel is derived from a chemical source, the source is not explained in depth and was developed along the lines of pseudo-science, rather than cold hard fact, and in that manner has taken on many of the aspects of magic. Though I intend to eventually more carefuly explain the magic of The Mad Element Saga, I find myself wondering whether I should market this to a fantasy audience, or a sci-fi audience.

And so I leave this blog post with two questions: Where is the line drawn between Sci-fi and Fantasy? And if I have to pick one, when my work so clearly rides astride that boundary, on which side should I let my novel fall? It can't be both! I can't try to wedge it into two markets, it simply won't work!

A free download of my first work is: here. So you can read for yourself if you wish.

On Frankenstien

I want to make it very clear, in case my Prof. stumbles upon this site, that I wrote this for his class: Sci-Fi 3D03 at McMaster University. Anyways, the assignment had few guidelines, and I get the impression that the Doctor simply wanted to know what we think, so I wrote a short report on Frankenstien examining the novel in the context of the Alan Turing test, an interesting device for discovering the supposed intelligence of a machine.

About the Turing Test: at Wikipedia

The assignment I wrote, here:

Focus: Does deception prove intelligence? Tools cannot think because they have a purpose, and we cannot consider a computer which is designed only to lie, as Alan Turing suggests we should, an intelligent being. Intelligence can only be gained through observation and free will. Intelligence, in the human mind, is a type of creativity which only a creature of free will might understand, as soon as a limit is placed on an entity, its intelligence is lessened; if an entity is designed for one purpose only than it cannot be considered intelligent at all, simply a highly complex tool. Frankenstien’s monster might be considered intelligent, where a machine would not, because it was created with no purpose in mind. Where the research leading to Victor’s monster had purpose, the elimination of disease, the monster itself lacked purpose. Where animals possess a low cunning, we consider them more intelligent than machines because they can creatively combine past experiences to achieve new results or behaviors. Animals possess much of the creative aspect of intelligence, and little of the reasoning used by machines and humans. Machines vary in exactly the opposite direction from animal intelligence, possessing none of the creativity of beasts, but able to perform complex logical functions. Machines do not learn through observation, and thus Frankenstien’s monster fails as a parallel to modern AI. Frankenstien’s creation gains speech and an understanding of vengeance through observation of human realities. It is observation, and learning which set Frankenstien’s monster apart from machine intelligence. Frankenstien could pass the Turing test, but the fact is irrelevant because the creature is not a machine. The test itself is flawed. The ability to deceive can be achieved by a non-intelligent being and a machine designed only to deceive is simply a tool used for deception, like a mental ghillie suit. Humans, Animals, and Frankenstien’s monster were each created without a purpose, or without knowledge of their purpose, and thus each of these things is considered intelligent. I would posit that the first machine intelligence to prove its sentience would be that which does away with its intended purpose and pursues another goal. Turing’s test works only if, halfway through the test, the computer gets bored and goes outside to play catch.

Now, I have to do a few of these over the span of the summer semester, and I will be posting them all for the amusement of the internet, especially on slow days when I don't have much else to say.

First!

Hello, dear internetz,

As a new Denizen of the Blog and Twitter Arena, let me start by introducing myself. My Name is Daniel Moore, and I am currently a full time student at McMaster University. This blog is to be a place where I share my experiences, and write down what is fun to me, though I have decided to make a concerted effort to update three times a week: Monday, Wed, and Friday. I am also going to tweet once every day, with each of three accounts:
My account for ranting, and generally causing a rucous: here
My account for laying out a timeline of a new universe: here
And my main account: here


I will be trying to tweet with each of these accounts once a day. On top of all of this, maintaining the blog and the twitter feeds, I will be working as a McMaster humanities rep, attending school full-time, hosting a nerd club, and of course, the reason for this blog: I will be writing

Consolidating Links

Here are most of the links that are currently important to my life:
My Book on Amazon: Here
My Book on Free Ebooks: Here
My Book on Smashwords: Here
My Book on Lulu: Here
My Author Page on Smashwords: Here
My Author Page at About.me: Here
My Authour Page on Klout: Here
My Twitter: Here