Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2279510" data-attributes="member: 4937">Does this mean that a sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology?  Would D&D in general, and Eberron in particular, be a good example of this?Your observation reminds me of something I said earlier, that it might be possible if you sufficiently sterlized magic, that you could write science fiction stories that had nothing to do with science at all.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about that statement, but if I decide that I accept it at some point, then I'm pretty sure that I would argue that in some cases its already been done.  For example, I believe that Robert Silverburg's 'Downward to the Earth' is a science fiction work, but Silverburg makes no real attempt at all in the story to explain the magic in terms of science.  And yet, it is in character vastly different in tone and theme than a fantasy story - or at least certainly what springs into the head the first time you think of a fantasy story - and obviously I would argue that the reason for that it that Robert Silverburg's exploration of indentity is done in a way that is firmly in the 'science fiction' camp in its use of fantastic symbols, as opposed to being in the camp of 'Star Wars' or 'Tolkein' in the way (and reasons) it uses symbols.So, would you say that sufficiently inaccessible technology was indistinguishable from magic?  Is this the case in say Gene Wolfe's, "Book of the Long Sun"?I think you are making interesting observations, but are you sure that they aren't just setting conventions?  If I altered the setting to the point that everyone could use the magic readily, would you cease to find it magical and if not, why not?I'm guessing from the above, that you'd still find it magical.  But I am still interested in your explanation for why you'd still find it magical.</blockquote>

Verification