Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?ObsidianJones said:If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.
But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
I define magic as the ability to harness, create, or control energies and/or the ability to manipulate reality by using nothing but the being's thoughts and will to affect said change. We're not talking I thought up a plan to move me out of my home, so I got some friends and we spent the afternoon clearing it out and moving it to my new place. We're talking "I used my mind to literally levitate and move my crap into my new house without any physical effort".Addendum_Forthcoming said:Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?ObsidianJones said:If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.
But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
I'm perplexed. The reason I wrote before that 'humans are pretty magical' is precisely thefact that humans implement quasi-magical thinking in order to be happy.
It's actually a pretty accepted psychological phenomena and it makes sense when you think about it. If humans were simply paralyzed to act because of their sapience and trying to consider truthfully the odds of their success nothing would get done and humans would lose all illusion of chaos and control.
But precisely because we fabricate quasi-magical narratives concerning our interaction with the world, it allows us to stand, to fight, to take chances, even if we are likely to fail. And it often leads to unique circumstances where simply with enough quasi-magical thinking humans collectively are capable of performing things they otherwise would be paralyzed to do if they were only thinking in terms of their personal input.
'Magic' is pretty hard to define, all things considered.
Quasi-magical thinking is a bit more complex than that. Quasi-magical thought is kind of like peopleconstructing narratives of control even if an illusion in the moment, but on the flipside allows them to do things that they would otherwise be paralyzed to fo in the face of probable failure or the crushing weight of reality. Quasi-magical thinking is the type of thinking that allows a person to enlist to fight the Third Reich, and even if one person amidst literal millions that idea of control to affect change personified by millions like them ultimately achieve even if only because so many thought like them.ObsidianJones said:I define magic as the ability to harness, create, or control energies and/or the ability to manipulate reality by using nothing but the being's thoughts and will to affect said change. We're not talking I thought up a plan to move me out of my home, so I got some friends and we spent the afternoon clearing it out and moving it to my new place. We're talking "I used my mind to literally levitate and move my crap into my new house without any physical effort".
But I'm a contrary person. Everyone is all "Evil is cool, I like the villain, I want more movies with villains". I'm like "Dude, I can turn on CNN to see villains. I'm tired of villains. I want my escapism to help me escape, not be more of the same things I see in my real life, but in a grander scale".
Well that's the lazy approach to magic. Good writers tend to be a lot better about it. I believe it was Brandon Sanderson who put it best, that "the author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic" (explained in greater detail here). For illustrative purposes, it's very vague what, exactly, Gandalf is capable of in Lord of the Rings. By the same token, however, he uses magic rarely and usually in a very limited capacity (such as setting pinecones on fire), relying far more on physical ability than magic for the most part. By contrast, "bending" in Avatar: The Last Airbender is straightforward and its capacities very well understood, and its pervasive usage is part of what defines the franchise. Similarly, Alchemy in FullMetal Alchemist and Allomancy in Mistborn are more heavily employed than the Force is in Star Wars (at least actively employed).Xsjadoblayde said:Magic is just unexplained science, suited best for writers who go "umm, you know what, let's not bother today."
Or so I read in a science cookie once.
You need to find a balance between those two extremes.Addendum_Forthcoming said:Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?ObsidianJones said:If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.
But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
I'm perplexed. The reason I wrote before that 'humans are pretty magical' is precisely thefact that humans implement quasi-magical thinking in order to be happy.
It's actually a pretty accepted psychological phenomena and it makes sense when you think about it. If humans were simply paralyzed to act because of their sapience and trying to consider truthfully the odds of their success nothing would get done and humans would lose all illusion of chaos and control.
But precisely because we fabricate quasi-magical narratives concerning our interaction with the world, it allows us to stand, to fight, to take chances, even if we are likely to fail. And it often leads to unique circumstances where simply with enough quasi-magical thinking humans collectively are capable of performing things they otherwise would be paralyzed to do if they were only thinking in terms of their personal input.
'Magic' is pretty hard to define, all things considered.
Like here's a clear example of magic ... You go to a casino. You see some people just hanging out by the poker machines. One person leaves a poker machine after deciding they're personally lost enough money ... and a lot of times you'll see that person that was just hanging around make a bee line to that machine.
The idea that by fate and the illusion of control, the karmic wheels are turning. That someone simply didn't stick long enough with a machine for it to pay out ...
And because humans are geared to remember instances of faith being rewarded rather than remember when faith has jeopardized them, allows that human to do something ... even if it ultimately means they'll lose money. Quasi-magical thinking ... and there's a decent argument it's one of the strongest forces to maintaining a person's optimism, but also an argument that that optimism even if exploitable does actually allow successes where otherwise a person wouldn't try at all.
Honestly, it's more fun having characters like that than the opposite. No one truly likes C-3PO ... they do like Han Solo telling C-3PO to 'never tell him the odds...'
Yeah, but confidence is sexy. In a modern setting with utterly 'unmagical' mindsets, you're running into characters that almost seem like they're on (or need) benzodiazepines and NaSSAs. Trope of the quiet, shy person... who ultimately never rocks the boat and is utterly anxious in the spotlight. The thing is, it's a trope and trope only of the 'unjustifiably confident social person' ... because extroverts tend to balance their risk-taking with experience through life.Agent_Z said:You need to find a balance between those two extremes.
Being hindered by doubt and depression isn't good but neither is unjustified optimism and lack of reasoning. characters who prefer seat
of your pants decision making being depicted as being almost always right compared to their more rational counterparts only promotes anti-intellectualism.
I don't think you can do more with extroverts necessarily. They just seem easier to write because they are more plentiful compared to introvert characters. Cassandra Cain is an introvert and one of the most complex and well written characters I've ever read in any comic or encountered in any media. People who have depression aren't less effective than those who don't have it. Not if they have ways to cope with it. Believe me I know. Batman's issue isn't being chronically depressed, it's him not seeking out help for it.Addendum_Forthcoming said:Yeah, but confidence is sexy. In a modern setting with utterly 'unmagical' mindsets, you're running into characters that almost seem like they're on (or need) benzodiazepines and NaSSAs. Trope of the quiet, shy person... who ultimately never rocks the boat and is utterly anxious in the spotlight. The thing is, it's a trope and trope only of the 'unjustifiably confident social person' ... because extroverts tend to balance their risk-taking with experience through life.Agent_Z said:You need to find a balance between those two extremes.
Being hindered by doubt and depression isn't good but neither is unjustified optimism and lack of reasoning. characters who prefer seat
of your pants decision making being depicted as being almost always right compared to their more rational counterparts only promotes anti-intellectualism.
Like I almost died in a motorcycle accident during a race. I survived that, and I became less enamoured with such things due to the toll it took on my life... but that being said I am still more skilled at riding than most motorcyclists if only because of those associations I made in my youth that would lead to pushing myself for the sake of whatever inflated ideas I had about the importance of social esteem. About proving I was the best (even if it wasn't ever going to happen).
It's why rags to riches people, even in so called 'nerd scenes', tend to be extroverts. It's why tech companies try to summon a (what I like to call) 'keyboard jockey rock star' type of media and lifestyle presence and projection. Trendy workspaces without cubicles and rather multiple means to engage with workers around them. They run strange theatrics of internal company presentations.
It's an extrovert's world... and being the best is secondary to being seen as the best.
By dint of that, either as villains or heroes, extroverts are more interesting types of plot driving characters. Because they're actively associating with other characters and because of nascent increases in risk-prone behaviour, they create a more realistic understanding and realization of conflict creation and conflict management.
As I was saying before ... 60s Batman is actually the type of Batman that gets stuff done in reality. Not the brooding, angsty, chronically depressed person... no, they just remain broody, angsty, chronically depressed people.
And while I'm not saying that you can't do anythng with that, I'm just saying there's less you can do with that... particularly if the narrative calls for complex social interactions and time-tested ideas of conflict and drama.
An extrovert can just literally steal the scene ... and they will believably do so. Often with spectacular effects to their detriment or success.