Is he going to school to learn how magic works, or is he going to school to learn how to do magic? In my mind the two can be seperated.

And I'll grant you, it is awfully convenient. I always looked at the Harry Potter series as wasted potential, because so little of it is fleshed out, I was simply saying such details make it difficult to draw a comparison.

 

You can't learn engineering without learning about how the math behind it all works. I don't see how magic is any different.

 

If a magic system is realistic, then I want it to have a few simple rules, and a lot of smudging around the edges, just like science does.
I.e.
F=ma, PV=nRT, and a few other simple, tangible rules. WITH the addition that: physics works perfectly fine, as long as you are in an frictionless vacuum. Otherwise the rules get you really really close. Rules for magic should do the same, cover 99% of all things.
While at the same time, I want to see the top 1% warpring the rules and kicking ass and having people be upset that they are breaking the rules.
The most interesting thing about harry potter's magic system to me wasn't wingardium leviosa or brromsticks that fly or any of the other stuff that harry learned, but the fact that he is a walking impossiblity of magic. The rules of magic say "you don't exist" and harry, by his very existence, flips them the bird.
The lone hero who fights the impossible fight weilding the magic sword from 10000 years ago is good, but the hero who fights the possible fight, having forged his own cudgel of badassery that doesn't care about the laws of magic or physics is a hell of a lot more interesting.

 

I was thinking about just this the other day. I have this twisted problem to always finding logical reasoning for things happening. Which is something that the Harry Potter magic system fucks up entirely (logical reasoning that is).

What I am about to say will sound absolutely stupid to some and considering this IS DLP I should probably not post this but I have to write this down.

I tried to take a different approach and here is what I came up with. Think of this world as a big, VERY VERY big web application.

Physcis -> CSS
Chemistry -> Javascript
Magic -> PHP

In a twisted way this makes sense to me.

The wand is an IDE.
Ancient Runes a library.

The reason why I took this train of thought is that the fact that saying "Stupefy" takes someone out has got no logical reason. Except if spells are names of a function. The content of a function is what the spell does. This can also work with people can create their own spells as we see in the sixth book. Though the problem remains how do user defined functions get executed by all the wands.

Does this make any sense at all or can be used in a fic? Should I just fuck off and die?

 

If I knew anything about computer code and the like, I might like that analogy better. Alas. -_-

 

Oh sorry. I will try to basically explain the stuff but that is why I gave the Wikipedia links.

IDE is basically a software you are using to write code. The better IDE you use the faster you can code. And a lot of fanfics use the idea that you can cast wandlessly but a wand helps you focus and makes the same task easy. That is why I symbolize a wand as an IDE.

A library is basically a collection of pre-written functions (lines of code doing a specific task) which can be incorporated into your program instead of writing the functions yourself/writing the same lines of code again and again.

Functions like I said earlier are lines of code doing a specific task. So spells can be functions. This is how a function works.

Code:

function stupefy() {
the code that stupefies the person
}

then whenever you write

Code:

stupefy();

"the code that stupefies the person" is executed.

Like I said before, saying stupefy stuns a person can only be logically reasoned this way afaik.

Another thing I forgot earlier, parameters can be the wand movements.

Also, one thing that I remembered when reading PV=nRT somewhere in previous posts is that, for a spell to have red color (stupefy?), it will have a certain frequency. Probably a great wizard like Dumbledore or something can actually keep the spell working while modifying the frequency enough for it to shift from invisible wavelength range and so the opponent has a hard time identifying what you throw at him (if you are casting silently).

This is the stuff I was expecting from MoT when I read the summary. Needless to say I was disappointed.

 

You are awesome DarkDeoxys.

As someone who is majoring in Computer Science, I was able to understand it and see how they compare. You are absolutely right.

I always found that the more rules magic has, the less interesting it is for me.

I always figured HP magic to be more like technology. No one knows it is possible until someone does it. No one believed magic could be taught in schools (or a magical school created) until the founders created Hogwarts. No one believed Muggles and Wizards could be truly separated until the Oblivate spell was invented. No one was suppose to survive the killing curse until Lily gave up her life to save Harry's.

It's a world of uncertainties just like the real world. No one ever assumed we could fly or get to the moon. I doubt people in the 1800s even imagined something like a tv or a computer.

I don't know how the world works, nor do I understand some functions in math, I just learn HOW to do them.

It's similar to Harry Potter. They learn the basics in each subject but unless they go to "master" the subject they want, they just would be like any other person.

I bet it takes years just to master one subject as it takes years for us to get Bachelors and Masters in the real world. We are taking about a boy from middle school to high school... Did you know exactly how the world worked at that age?

Anyways... I like HP magic just for the fact that it feels magical and you can imagine and create a world for fanfiction that expands on it... Look at what Taure has done in his fanfiction pieces. AMAZING.

 

Science, Pseudo-Science, Non-science.

Science - A theoretical basis with experimental proof that can be applied to new experiments and give a reasonable expectation of the results for the new experiment. When this is not the case, the theory is said to be incomplete of value only in those situations where it's predictions and results agree. That applies to any science(physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)

Pseudo Science - A hodge-podge vague understanding of underlying theoretical principles to explain new observations, that is of very limited experimental predictive value. It could point the direction for more rigorous theoretical work.

Non Science - Some dude's opinion based on his felt observations, that is no way objective.

Then this makes all magic at best Pseudo-Science and usually just non-science.

The so called scientific magic is just axiomatic definitions with a logical structure built on top of those axioms.

 

I've never had too much of a problem suspending disbelief for a magic system, but I have to say that Sympathy is probably the most "realistic" magic system I've read so far (with Allomancy a fairly close second). It doesn't rely on any sort of mystical forces - just a projection of will - and it obeys the basic laws of physics.

I agree with Tehan in that no magic system can be truly realistic since they all involve doing something impossible in our world, but I can't think of a better term to describe them.

 

The best way to describe the various magic systems, IMHO, is somewhat along the 'Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness' (tvtropes), albeit a fantasy equivalent.

On the one hand you have 'hard' fantasy magic systems: magic follows the laws of reality and physics. (FMA: 'I don't break the laws of reality, I make them my bitch.')

On the other hand, you have 'soft' fantasy systems that say "it just does". HP magic falls under this category.

The whole 'believable HP magic system' thing is us trying to move the HP system into the hard end of the scale, where we can apply rules, restrictions, and laws to the magic-ness in order to better quantify and understand it. Unfortunately, Harry Potter was originally designed for children, and despite her claims to the contrary, I firmly believe that she did NOT have the series and/or system planned out before writing all the books. The inconsistencies and plot-holes speak enough.

 

lolwut?

To reiterate what many people have said before: Realistic Magic is an oxymoron.

 

I find myself going the opposite way to many poeple. I feel that magic is more 'realistic' when there are less limitations to what can be achieved through it . I enjoy the types of magic employed in HP, Inheritance series and various other fantasy universes where words and intent combined with innate magical skill is all that is needed to achieve and all the explanantion we get for how it works is from some belief or non-scientific explanation. I feel the more science based magic becomes, the more it dives into the realm sci-fi/fantasy hybrid than just being fantasy.

I still believe there should be rules or guidelines as to how the magic is done like needing to ahve a magical reserve or special rune but the less scientific the explanation the more 'realistic' it is for me.

 

I am not saying realistic. Read the first line of my view. "Think of this world as a big, VERY VERY big web application." Realistic? NO. I am just saying that even if some supernatural power allows one to wield magic there has to be some reason WHY saying Stupefy stuns someone and Avada Kedavra kills someone. If we follow the trend it should be Killefy (WTF did I just say?), you get the idea. This means some sentient entity is responsible for naming this shit.

 

I don't think that any magic system can be said to follow the laws of reality. If they did, then we would be doing magic today. The closest one can get to a realistic system is to have it obey the laws of physics, but the fact remains that (to use the example of Sympathy) it is impossible to connect two objects over a distance with nothing more than force of will, even if that connection obeys any laws of physics that would need to be applied to it if it did exist. In short, it breaks the laws of reality.

It may be a bit of an oxymoron, but can you come up with a better term?

 

The magic systems I tend to prefer are ones that are separate from physics, but there is still a kind of symbiosis between the two. Dresdenverse magic, for example, uses magical energy to impose the magical being's will upon reality, and then alters reality in that area in order to make it happen. It's not really a part of physics, but there are some laws in common (second law of thermodynamics, nature abhors a vacuum, etc.), and that makes it familiar enough for me to grasp how it works without having to think from a completely alien perspective.

That's probably what most people mean by realistic, as an aside; it's a familiar enough system for them to work existing knowledge of reality to fill in the gaps that the author has left out in the text.

 

On the surface, that might be an apt analogy, but Engineering implies taking a fundamental knowledge and applying it to new situations.

In this analogy, Harry (and in fact almost all magic users) would be more like draftsmen than engineers - getting enough of a glimpse of basics to make go/no-go decisions such as, "I put the given parameters into the design software; do these results look plausible?" The draftsmen (usually called "designers" in Civil Engineering) are not breaking new ground, but rather using rote knowledge to address routine problems. One could argue that "new ground" isn't to be found in many fields of Engineering outside research and theory, but that's not necessarily true.

Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort - even the Weasley twins - would be like licensed PEs (Professional Engineers), people like "the Marauders" would possibly be like EITs (Engineers in Training), and everyone else would be like draftsmen.

Again, it's not an exact or even very good analogy, but you started it. ;-P

 

[12:47pm] JBlaise: All magic emanates from my magical core
[12:47pm] • JBlaise stares at Taure
[12:47pm] • JBlaise waits
[12:47pm] Taure: If by core.
[12:48pm] Taure: You mean ball sack.
[12:48pm] Taure: Then this is acceptable.
[12:48pm] • JBlaise means ballsack
[12:48pm] Aziraphale: it is a pretty magical place
[12:48pm] Aziraphale: :3

/thread

 

I haven't seen anybody say it, but the magic system in the Mistborn trilogy (Allomancy, Feruchemy, and Hemalurgy) is very detailed and rule bound. It's still very magical- but almost every aspect is explained, and even many laws of physics are applied to it's usage (law of energy conservation, laws of motion, etc). It's a very well rounded and logical system... once you get past the magic part.

EDIT: It was indeed mentioned. But the system itself is still rather rigid and follows a very thorough set of guidelines.

 

For me, a fantasy novel's magic system should be internally consistent and follow certain rules. These rules should be different from scientific laws - after all, magic, by its nature, ignores scientific laws. However, these rules should also not be created to help a writer get out of the corner they accidentally wrote themselves into *COUGH*gamp'slaw*COUGH*. They should be laid out by the author to themselves and stuck-to.

This, in my opinion, helps to create an interesting story because although magic allows our characters to violate the laws of physics, it doesn't make them all-powerful gods - something I would find boring.

I think what a people mean by "realistic" magical system is one that obeys a set of rules . . . because reality obeys a set of rules. The laws of magic may be different from the laws of physics, but it's still an explainable system (if done well), and that makes it "realistic." At least, that is my opinion.