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: 6295180" data-attributes="member: 4937">It's not that 'science' is more grounded than magic, because it isn't.  A simple perusal of the works of Iain M. Banks will show that science as a literary trope is less grounded than magic.  Magic is more limited.  All you do is throw out the 'sufficiently advanced science' card.The problem with the wizardry analogy is that science is more sharable than magic.  No one expects that if the wizard gives you a ball of bat guano and sulfur that you can throw a fireball.  Using one requires esoteric knowledge.  But science creates the expectation of 'push button fireball shooters' in a way that magic doesn't.  Even if it takes esoteric magic to make a phaser, viewers have the expectation of 'point and shoot' in terms of using the phaser.  The equivalent of the Wizard in terms of battle field control is the guy with a power suit bristling with weapons and gizmos, which unfortunately isn't the same thematic trope and more important isn't a trope that seems to be unique to the concept.  Why can't everyone wear armor bristling with weapons and gizmos?Traditionally, if you want wizards in your science fiction, you convert your science fiction to science fantasy by directly adding the wizards and then giving them a science fiction name - like psionics, psychics, jedi, etc.   These are directly magic using wizards with all that implies, but given a costume to let them fit in better.   I should note that even Star Trek does this.  Spock is the wizard (and an Elven Wizard to boot), and he has various esoteric powers like Vulcan mind meld, Vulcan grip, etc.  McCoy is the cleric.  Later on you get Worf as the half-orc.  True science fiction is rarely found in mass market media, as fantasy is just easier for most people to 'get'.</blockquote>

Verification