Magic in Space Opera

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

It would be like analyzing paintings. You could explain many things, come up with useful rules of composition and technique, but the spark that differentiates a great painting from a merely well made painting isn't reducible to analysis.

Sure it is. Scientists analyze and write papers on creativity, genius, related brain functions, and associated socio-economic status all the time. It's a common platitude that creativity and art are not reducible to analysis, but it's untrue. You can study them and appreciate them.

Science can't currently explain everything about creativity, but that just shows where more work needs to be done. But it does know a lot already. It knows that someone with a very active corpus callosum is more likely to exhibit creativity and genius. It knows a lot about which areas of the brain handle various functions, including various aspects of creativity. It studies the history of art and why we find certain art better than others. It studies the appreciation of music in certain non-human animals, and compares those results to humans.

Science and art aren't opposed but the difference between talent and genius isn't analyzable. Mainly because it is infuriatingly hard to nail down.

Scientists study and analyze things like talent and genius all the time. "Hard to nail down" just means you have to find a better experiment.

Nailing down the details of spirit "society" is like using glue to hold down shadows.

On the one hand, why should it? In some settings, spirits have societies and rules and so on. For a tongue-in-cheek but still relevant example, see Beetlejuice. On the other hand, even if spirits are really hard to study and any society they may have is hard to describe, that means they can be studied and described, and you just have to come up with a better method for doing so. The subatomic world is impossible to see, and learning what subatomic particles are doing is also like trying to hold down shadows, but scientists have been coming up with ways to study it and them for a century.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Scientists study and analyze things like talent and genius all the time. "Hard to nail down" just means you have to find a better experiment.

Well no, it means you need to find clearer definitions first.

Because particularly in a case like a "difference between talent and genius" it's actually quite plausible to assert the reason you can't analyze the difference is there isn't one. A difference that "can't be put into words" often can't because it isn't objectively real. There's a good reason a lot of science (or for that matter philosophy or theology or literary criticism or anything else remotely analytic) seems to devolve into semantic arguments. Clear definitions are an essential first step to actually understanding anything.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by malloyd

There's a good reason a lot of science [...] seems to devolve into semantic arguments.

Are you arguing semantics with me? :)

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Well no, it means you need to find clearer definitions first.

Agreed and in things like magic, usefully clear definitions might not be available. And if Magic involves subjective considerations, working for clear definitions might be pointless. Think about Dead Poets Society and the geometric formula for the worth of a poem. The terms were presents as fixed and clear but they utterly abstract and presented as concrete.

Because particularly in a case like a "difference between talent and genius" it's actually quite plausible to assert the reason you can't analyze the difference is there isn't one. A difference that "can't be put into words" often can't because it isn't objectively real. There's a good reason a lot of science (or for that matter philosophy or theology or literary criticism or anything else remotely analytic) seems to devolve into semantic arguments. Clear definitions are an essential first step to actually understanding anything.

There is some kind of difference. Shakespeare still gets performed in for-profit theatres and people buy tickets because they want to see a great show. Thomas Kyd is mentioned in history of theater courses.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Are you arguing semantics with me? :)

For a great semantic argument watch Dragonfire. The sequence ending with "An Existentialist!" is wonderful.

[jason taylor]

Magic as "undefinable something" often features in space opera. We do not know how the Prophets stopped the Jem'hadder fleet at the last moment. Nor what Q does. Or whatever. We do not know how Vorlons keep Jack the Ripper alive. Sufficiently Advanced Aliens are indistinguishable from gods.

Having mages working by formula in the Banestorm manner probably would not work in Sci-Fi and indeed I rather don't like it in Banestorm. That type of magic has less wonder in it then gadgets do.

[Lord Azagthoth]

Chakotay in ST: Voyager use Spirit Magic on several occasions.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

Chakotay in ST: Voyager use Spirit Magic on several occasions.

That's a good example.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

Chakotay in ST: Voyager use Spirit Magic on several occasions.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That's a good example.

As I recall, however, they were always careful to keep the reality of the spirit magic uncertain. Chakotay might have a vision, but it might just have been his imagination or a dream. He might be led somewhere he needs to go, but it might just be a coincidence. He might meet a god, but it's really an ancient alien that visited Earth and left some message in humanity's genes. (I don't remember which of these — if any — happened in the series, only that what did happen was of this sort.)

The practice of magical traditions is one thing; you can do that whether magic is real or not. I think this thread is asking specifically about known-to-be-working magic combined with space opera.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

As I recall, however, they were always careful to keep the reality of the spirit magic uncertain. Chakotay might have a vision, but it might just have been his imagination or a dream. He might be led somewhere he needs to go, but it might just be a coincidence. He might meet a god, but it's really an ancient alien that visited Earth and left some message in humanity's genes. (I don't remember which of these — if any — happened in the series, only that what did happen was of this sort.)

The practice of magical traditions is one thing; you can do that whether magic is real or not. I think this thread is asking specifically about known-to-be-working magic combined with space opera.

Occult practitioners are, have been, and will be, a part of the real world. Thus a hard sci fi story could feature a witch. Her spells might be bushwa, but she could be a real person earning her living as an occult practitioner.

That said, a spirit quest, even an ambiguously real one could fit.