# Magic and technology



## Azu

Once I showed my pieces of work to a friend. He insisted that to make it sci-fi, I should remove 'angels', 'knights on horses', 'wizards', 'gryphons' and 'magic' where I included starships, ion-powered sabres and futuristic temples and castles with anti-nuclear shields and tesla artilleries.

Then I decided to adapt. Instead of living horses, I would write about some vehicles called 'Stallion' or even robotic horses and still retain 'knights' as warriors that wield ion-powered sabres. I would still retain 'angels' as highly evolved, cybernetic humans whose tiny chipset fitted in their spine enables them to turn ethereal, fly and so on.

However, I also include time-travel technology that allows some characters to travel into the past and meet with primitive people from medieval ages. Still, 'magic' and technology are not really compatible with each other. To retain historic aesthetics of feudal ages whilst setting the story in a progressive, futuristic era, I would like to hear from you community on the legitimacy of blending together magic and technology to befit sci-fi genre.


----------



## Guard Dog

I've currently got 276,000+ words written of a story that involves magic, demons, starships, androids, synthetic people, figures from myth and legend, as well as several technologically-advanced races.

In fact, the entire human race turns out to have been seeded by one of these races, as part of this universe's/reality's creator's 'grand plan'.

So, if having both magic and advanced technology in the same story is a bad thing... I'm in trouble, and have wasted a great deal of time and effort. :concern:

Anyway, all I'm going to tell you is write your story any way you like. It's your story, after all, and not someone else's.

Oh, and one last thing: So far, most of the few people who've read any of what I've written seem to like it, and nobody has told me I'm wasting my time. *shrug*

G.D.


----------



## Azu

Well, that's reassuring and good to hear.


----------



## Guard Dog

If you want more, look at the current batch of Marvel comic book movies, or even the comics themselves:

On the magic side, you have characters like Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch. 

On the technology side, you have Iron Man and Vision.

And right in the middle is Thor, who claims Asgardian magic is just a more advanced form of technology... but certainly _looks_ like magic.


G.D.


----------



## Azu

Indeed.


----------



## Azu

Guard Dog said:


> I've currently got 276,000+ words written of a story that involves magic, demons, starships, androids, synthetic people, figures from myth and legend, as well as several technologically-advanced races.
> 
> In fact, the entire human race turns out to have been seeded by one of these races, as part of this universe's/reality's creator's 'grand plan'.
> 
> So, if having both magic and advanced technology in the same story is a bad thing... I'm in trouble, and have wasted a great deal of time and effort. :concern:
> 
> Anyway, all I'm going to tell you is write your story any way you like. It's your story, after all, and not someone else's.
> 
> Oh, and one last thing: So far, most of the few people who've read any of what I've written seem to like it, and nobody has told me I'm wasting my time. *shrug*
> 
> G.D.



I'd be very curious to read it! Do you have any excerpts on the forum?


----------



## epimetheus

Star Wars has moon sized space stations taken out by a warrior monk and some teddy bears. 

The tricky bit is putting them altogether into a consistent world.


----------



## Azu

epimetheus said:


> Star Wars has moon sized space stations taken out by a warrior monk and some teddy bears.
> 
> The tricky bit is putting them altogether into a consistent world.



In terms of consistency, does one need correct scientific knowledge to write realistic science fiction with 'magic'?

Being laypeople when it comes to sciences, how do novelists manage to create compelling sci-fi?


----------



## epimetheus

Azu said:


> In terms of consistency, does one need correct scientific knowledge to write realistic science fiction with 'magic'?
> 
> Being laypeople when it comes to sciences, how do novelists manage to create compelling sci-fi?



Star Wars Ships have shields - whether the technology can actually exist is entirely irrelevant to the story. It may as well be magic. But it is applied consistently and becomes important for the plot when the goodies take out the Death Star by recruiting local teddy bears to take out its shield generator. Space Odyssey 2001 ships don't have shields so HAL couldn't just raise shields to keep out the pilot. Both consistent, but give very different feels. 

Set out the limits of what your magic can and cannot do, what your technology can and cannot do and if and how they interact. Then apply them consistently. You could also try to make plot points revolving around these limitations.

I'm writing a near future sci-fi, but i've chosen hard sci-fi which involves tons of research - and i've already got a background in science: it's part of the writing process i enjoy. But writing Star Wars would involve no actual science whatsoever, just consistent world rules, hence no need for science research.


----------



## Azu

Yes, I should keep in mind limits that I should place on how far magic and technology can go in my stories.


----------



## Guard Dog

Azu said:


> I'd be very curious to read it! Do you have any excerpts on the forum?



Yeah, there're bits n' pieces of it all over the place here.

The House of Cerberus - Chapters 1 and 2 4325 words ( Adult themes, language )

A fight, from later on in the story.

A short story from the same world.

And an excerpt here, from a discussion on A.I.

It's a long way from finished, and none of that really gets into the good bits, but it should give you a general idea of what I'm doing.


G.D.


----------



## Theglasshouse

I know you are a skilled writer guard dog because you use your imagination. Here's a caveat, or more like advice. Don't let your friends read it. Or your family because they are too nice more often than not and aren't honest. I think you can get away with science and magic if you provide an explanation or the world's backstory as to why the story is the way it is. I am currently trying this for a project as a work in progress.


----------



## Guard Dog

Theglasshouse said:


> I know you are a skilled writer guard dog because you use your imagination. Here's a caveat, or more like advice. Don't let your friends read it. Or your family because they are too nice more often than not and aren't honest. I think you can get away with science and magic if you provide an explanation or the world's backstory as to why the story is the way it is. I am currently trying this for a project as a work in progress.



None of my friends or relatives have seen it. ( Mostly because they would be horrified at what I've done with religion. )

Only the people here. ( I've sent a couple of those I trust here a large portion of it to look over. )

So far, as I've said, reactions have been positive, even though it's a long way from finished and still needs much work on the portion that is written.
( I'm thinking of renaming it 'The Eternal Edit'. )


G.D.

P.S. I still think 'skilled writer' is very much up for debate, but thanks all the same.


----------



## Theglasshouse

In order for my work not to get labeled a dystopia, I discovered the other day a technology that could make this alternate universe possible. I am making it a conflict within the story near the beginning.

However, that's great that you have sent it to people you think are trustworthy. I fell into that trap various times.


----------



## Guard Dog

Theglasshouse, you need to understand that with me, the story is already set. It's done, in my mind.

What I need now are people that can help me put it down on paper in such a way that conveys what's in my mind to the minds of others, so that they 'see' the same things I do in that story.

Then, if people like it, great, and if they don't, that's okay too.

Just so long as I've presented the intended 'picture'.
( People can label or call it whatever they want. That part doesn't matter. )



G.D.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Ok so the story is finished, I know what you mean. I am a big rewriter but then again I write a lot of short stories and I will until I feel I am competent in English. My appointment to go to the doctor is in January to check if I have disabilities or my if my grammar needs to be relearned.


----------



## Guard Dog

Yep, the story is finished, done.

And it's been re-written and revised many times, in the past 30-odd years. In my head.

...only now, with that part over with, comes the hard part - for me; writing it down.
( Think about it like having a song in your mind, but you don't sing or play an instrument, so have to learn.)


G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Guard Dog said:


> Yep, the story is finished, done.
> 
> And it's been re-written and revised many times, in the past 30-odd years. In my head.
> 
> ...only now, with that part over with, comes the hard part - for me; writing it down.
> ( Think about it like having a song in your mind, but you don't sing or play an instrument, so have to learn.)
> 
> 
> G.D.



You're contradicting yourself.

If the story has never been written down, then it was never written. If the story was never written, it was never rewritten.

I understand that the story has been revised in your mind, but it remains fluid until it is written down. It is the act of committing the words to paper, phone or computer that solidifies it. 




Guard Dog said:


> What I need now are people that can help me put it down on paper in such a way that conveys what's in my mind to the minds of others, so that they 'see' the same things I do in that story.



What, exactly, are you looking for? Advice? A ghost writer? How much actual writing have you done on this project thus far?


----------



## Guard Dog

Jack, don't start with me. I'm not going to argue with you over opinion or semantics.

I'm having a discussion here with Azu, concerning Magic and Technology, and Theglasshouse on writing in general.

I'm not looking for or wanting anything, at the moment.

That's it.

Oh, and you can look here for how much I've written.


G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Guard Dog said:


> Jack, don't start with me. I'm not going to argue with you over opinion or semantics.
> 
> I'm having a discussion here with Azu, concerning Magic and Technology, and Theglasshouse on writing in general.
> 
> I'm not looking for or wanting anything, at the moment.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Oh, and you can look here for how much I've written.
> 
> 
> G.D.



You should be a lot more particular in your word choices. It's not my responsibility to read every post of yours. How odd that you should think I should.


----------



## Cran

_Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic _- *Clarke's Third Law*



Azu said:


> To retain historic aesthetics of feudal ages whilst setting the story in a progressive, futuristic era, I would like to hear from you community on the legitimacy of blending together magic and technology to befit sci-fi genre.


Futuristic feudal empires have been standard SF (science fantasy or speculative fiction) playgrounds for generations of writers, so no one will bat an eye at you wanting to add your story to the mix. 

As others have already indicated, the key to a good story is internal consistency. Whether it is an alternative future history or timeline, or based "in a galaxy far, far away", you will want to set down your physical and metaphysical laws, and your political and military regimes, so that you understand them. That doesn't mean you need to write them into your story, only that your story doesn't break your set rules ... unless you decide to play the chaos card and really mess with your characters' heads.



Azu said:


> In terms of consistency, does one need correct scientific knowledge to write realistic science fiction with 'magic'?
> 
> Being laypeople when it comes to sciences, how do novelists manage to create compelling sci-fi?


Most of the best known writers of (hard) science fiction in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were real scientists; and the few who weren't were passionately interested in the science of the day. That was how they could write compelling sci-fi. 

The definition of science fiction is a fictional story which is based upon extrapolations of the science of the day. I'll give you a couple of examples:

In the mid-seventeenth century, Cyrano de Bergerac - yes, he of the big nose and countless duels - wrote of a journey to the moon ... using rockets. No, he didn't get a tip from Nostrodamus; he was a soldier, and gunpowder had made it to the battlefield in a big way (hence the musketeers), although it had been a novelty for fire crackers (including sky rockets) for many years before that in aristocratic France. Far more inspired was that the moon-people used talking earrings to teach their children.

In the early nineteenth century, Mary Shelley wrote of a scientist who used lightning to reanimate the combined parts of dead flesh. It was a monster story, although opinions differ as to who was the true monster. And it was science fiction, because it drew upon the recently published experiments and demonstrations of electrical impulses to produce muscle movement in dead animal limbs.

One more:
The first found black hole was discovered in 1971, although the term was coined by astronomer John Wheeler in 1967. However, stories which included black holes or black stars had popped up for decades prior ... thanks to Einstein's mathematical prediction (and description) of collapsed stars in his general theory of relativity, published in 1915. 


However, *it is far more important* to write a compelling story than to worry about what genre it will fit into.


----------



## Gumby

*Admin Note:*

Question asked:



Jack of all trades said:


> How much actual writing have you done on this project thus far?



Question answered:



Guard Dog said:


> Oh, and you can look here for how much I've written.
> 
> 
> G.D.






Jack of all trades said:


> You should be a lot more particular in your word choices. It's not my responsibility to read every post of yours. How odd that you should think I should.




This is argumentative, Jack. If you don't want to actually have your question answered, then don't ask it. Either join in on the conversation being held here, or move on to another thread.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Azu said:


> Still, 'magic' and technology are not really compatible with each other. ... I would like to hear from you community on the legitimacy of blending together magic and technology to befit sci-fi genre.




Hi Azu! 

You've got a lot of good advice in this thread! I thought I could also add a few thoughts about...consistency! (Kinda sounds like there's a broken record player in here, eh?) In Babylon 5, the Rangers were supposed to have superior technology that 'appeared' to us to function like magic. It's kind of an old theme. However, despite the "ooh-ahh, that's cool" factor, the spin-off movie showcasing the Rangers died. Quickly. There's a reason for that. There is also a reason why Star Wars has been so successful in incorporating religion. So, why did one succeed and the other did not?

There are a lot of opinions about the differences between SF and Fantasy (FAN). Here is a very brief and simplistic overview (of my opinions) to help your investigation:

SF: Reason-based. Draws on 'why' and 'how' -type questions to answer story problems. 
Example: How did the Delorian get _Back to the Future_? It was due to the flux capacitor. A physical thing. There is a rational answer to the problem.

FAN: Religion based. Draws on mythology or 'who' -type questions to answer story problems. 
Example: _Star Wars_. "Use the Force, Luke!" Some kind of _being_ or _who-ness _is implied (not always agency but at least existence), and it generally lacks physical existence. This provides a faith-based answer to the problem.


Furthermore...when dealing with religion and science in SF and FAN, the norm seems to be:

SF: Religion (almost) always takes second fiddle to reason. The bad guy may have strong religious views but the hero is most likely cast as a hero of reason, not faith. 
Example: _Sunshine_.

FAN: Reason takes second fiddle to faith. The man of faith is sure his gods won't fail him, even triumphing over greater forces and technologies. Examples: _Lord of the Rings_; _Siegfried and the Dragon_.


As a reference, you might be interested in a series from the '70s/'80s where all the titles began, "The Wizard and..." It's about a technological man and his mechanical steel horse who finds himself in a land based on magic. I just dumped the 20 or so books I had in the series when I moved (heartless!) because I had never read it, so I can't tell you if it was good or not. I can tell you that for the author to sell so many books in the same series he had found a buying public. My guess is he ironed out some of these consistency issues. It could be very helpful to see how he handled it.

Finally... Why Star Wars succeeded where Babylon 5 did not is because of consistency. Star Wars began with the mythic quest (1st three movies), and they _wisely_ brought in Fantasy writer Terry Brooks (_Sword of Shannara_) to maintain the fantasy worldview in their later movies. Star Wars' religious orientation is pantheism with some neopagan thought tossed in. Everything Star Wars did was _consistent_ in its worldview. However, Babylon 5 placed its ultimate value in reason and knowledge. Their mistake in focusing exclusively in the Rangers' movie (sorry if I'm giving someone's fav movie a bad rap!) was that the Rangers appealed to a knowledge system that could not be measured or reasonably explained except as being 'more advanced'. This is a Fantasy writer's answer and it ran contrary to the series' overriding reliance on naturalism's insistence on knowledge as having a reasonable explanation. The Rangers took it on faith.


I hope this gives you an idea about how to handle consistency in SF and FAN. It may help to conceive of an ultimate value. For example, Star Trek DS9 does a great job when they give screen time to the Ferengi, who hold money as their ultimate value.

You may have heard the old adage that a Science Fiction Writer can write Fantasy, but a Fantasy Writer can never write Science Fiction? This is the whole _reason_ why. 

Oh--and by the way--the differences I've outlined here between reason and religion have been drawn from the worldview of naturalism. However, despite naturalism's claims, religion not based on 'blind faith' does exist and has logical reasons to support it. Therefore, a story in either SF or FAN drawn from this position takes on a different worldview than that which I've outlined above. This is what I write.

Good luck to you! Keep us posted on how it's going!


----------



## Azu

Megan Pearson said:


> Hi Azu!
> 
> You've got a lot of good advice in this thread! I thought I could also add a few thoughts about...consistency! (Kinda sounds like there's a broken record player in here, eh?) In Babylon 5, the Rangers were supposed to have superior technology that 'appeared' to us to function like magic. It's kind of an old theme. However, despite the "ooh-ahh, that's cool" factor, the spin-off movie showcasing the Rangers died. Quickly. There's a reason for that. There is also a reason why Star Wars has been so successful in incorporating religion. So, why did one succeed and the other did not?
> 
> There are a lot of opinions about the differences between SF and Fantasy (FAN). Here is a very brief and simplistic overview (of my opinions) to help your investigation:
> 
> SF: Reason-based. Draws on 'why' and 'how' -type questions to answer story problems.
> Example: How did the Delorian get _Back to the Future_? It was due to the flux capacitor. A physical thing. There is a rational answer to the problem.
> 
> FAN: Religion based. Draws on mythology or 'who' -type questions to answer story problems.
> Example: _Star Wars_. "Use the Force, Luke!" Some kind of _being_ or _who-ness _is implied (not always agency but at least existence), and it generally lacks physical existence. This provides a faith-based answer to the problem.
> 
> 
> Furthermore...when dealing with religion and science in SF and FAN, the norm seems to be:
> 
> SF: Religion (almost) always takes second fiddle to reason. The bad guy may have strong religious views but the hero is most likely cast as a hero of reason, not faith.
> Example: _Sunshine_.
> 
> FAN: Reason takes second fiddle to faith. The man of faith is sure his gods won't fail him, even triumphing over greater forces and technologies. Examples: _Lord of the Rings_; _Siegfried and the Dragon_.
> 
> 
> As a reference, you might be interested in a series from the '70s/'80s where all the titles began, "The Wizard and..." It's about a technological man and his mechanical steel horse who finds himself in a land based on magic. I just dumped the 20 or so books I had in the series when I moved (heartless!) because I had never read it, so I can't tell you if it was good or not. I can tell you that for the author to sell so many books in the same series he had found a buying public. My guess is he ironed out some of these consistency issues. It could be very helpful to see how he handled it.
> 
> Finally... Why Star Wars succeeded where Babylon 5 did not is because of consistency. Star Wars began with the mythic quest (1st three movies), and they _wisely_ brought in Fantasy writer Terry Brooks (_Sword of Shannara_) to maintain the fantasy worldview in their later movies. Star Wars' religious orientation is pantheism with some neopagan thought tossed in. Everything Star Wars did was _consistent_ in its worldview. However, Babylon 5 placed its ultimate value in reason and knowledge. Their mistake in focusing exclusively in the Rangers' movie (sorry if I'm giving someone's fav movie a bad rap!) was that the Rangers appealed to a knowledge system that could not be measured or reasonably explained except as being 'more advanced'. This is a Fantasy writer's answer and it ran contrary to the series' overriding reliance on naturalism's insistence on knowledge as having a reasonable explanation. The Rangers took it on faith.
> 
> 
> I hope this gives you an idea about how to handle consistency in SF and FAN. It may help to conceive of an ultimate value. For example, Star Trek DS9 does a great job when they give screen time to the Ferengi, who hold money as their ultimate value.
> 
> You may have heard the old adage that a Science Fiction Writer can write Fantasy, but a Fantasy Writer can never write Science Fiction? This is the whole _reason_ why.
> 
> Oh--and by the way--the differences I've outlined here between reason and religion have been drawn from the worldview of naturalism. However, despite naturalism's claims, religion not based on 'blind faith' does exist and has logical reasons to support it. Therefore, a story in either SF or FAN drawn from this position takes on a different worldview than that which I've outlined above. This is what I write.
> 
> Good luck to you! Keep us posted on how it's going!



I love the way you try to dichotomise between fantasy and science fiction, respectively in terms of religion/faith and reason! Again, naturalism tends to be very much rationalistic/reason-driven so this can potentially favour science fiction as more authentic though.

But it would be interesting to say that both magic and technology can be explained by invisible structures or forces, like for example it could be magician's tricks. To non-engineers, even physics is too abstruse to mystify 'technological wonders and perplexities' with, for example - why TV can be so flat and deliver motion pictures out of the blue.

It would be interesting to reinterpret 'magic' in science fiction writing where it is used not on the basis of tricks but because of hidden technological powers.


----------



## Guard Dog

In the world I've created, 'Magic' is simply using the power or substance of the universe... the ability to manipulate and control it. 

And it's no more 'unnatural', or 'supernatural' than science learning to harness electricity and other natural forces.

You could almost think of it as another sort of physics... A different chapter in that book, that some have yet to discover or read.



G.D.


----------



## Cran

re Star Wars - they did attempt to combine science and faith with respect to the Force: midichlorians, sub-microscopic fundamental biological units that pervade and interconnect all living things. Anakin Skywalker's midichlorian count was "off the scale"; not surprising considering he was meant to be a virgin birth ("there was no father") - sound familiar?

re B5 and spin-offs - the B5 universe included technomages, people who used technological implants and implements to perform actions with all the appearances and behaviors of magic.

Explaining "magic" or "miracles" in terms of new (or even old) physics in science fiction tales is a commonly found ingredient, often in time-travel stories.


----------



## kaminoshiyo

Azu said:


> Once I showed my pieces of work to a friend. He insisted that to make it sci-fi, I should remove 'angels', 'knights on horses', 'wizards', 'gryphons' and 'magic' where I included starships, ion-powered sabres and futuristic temples and castles with anti-nuclear shields and tesla artilleries.
> 
> Then I decided to adapt. Instead of living horses, I would write about some vehicles called 'Stallion' or even robotic horses and still retain 'knights' as warriors that wield ion-powered sabres. I would still retain 'angels' as highly evolved, cybernetic humans whose tiny chipset fitted in their spine enables them to turn ethereal, fly and so on.
> 
> However, I also include time-travel technology that allows some characters to travel into the past and meet with primitive people from medieval ages. Still, 'magic' and technology are not really compatible with each other. To retain historic aesthetics of feudal ages whilst setting the story in a progressive, futuristic era, I would like to hear from you community on the legitimacy of blending together magic and technology to befit sci-fi genre.



I like your original idea better- before your friends suggestion. It is quirky and very interesting and it could definitely have worked. Sticking to conformity is safe, sure, but real brilliance shines when you create something new. 

Also...there is no story where magic appears and technology doesn't. A fork is as much an example of technology as a wooden ship or a sword or a lamp. A great example of a story blending magic and technology is, of course, Star Wars. Another is Dune. Harry Potter? One really absurd one is One Piece. One Piece, specifically, is utterly absurd as a premise, but very engaging and entertaining. 

Go with it, I say. Crazy is crazy cool.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Guard Dog said:


> In the world I've created, 'Magic' is simply using the power or substance of the universe... the ability to manipulate and control it.
> 
> And it's no more 'unnatural', or 'supernatural' than science learning to harness electricity and other natural forces.
> 
> You could almost think of it as another sort of physics... A different chapter in that book, that some have yet to discover or read.
> 
> G.D.



Yah, I think Jediism approaches it in that manner, too.


----------



## Guard Dog

One of the things that has always amused me is that most 'Religious' people don't generally acknowledge or accept 'magic' as anything but fantasy. They almost always turn to science for explanations of common things or events.
( They go to doctors when they're sick, or a mechanic when their cars break down, not a priest or other 'religious leader'. And anyone who does is considered backward, ignorant, or primitive. )

And yet their own belief system, whether it's Christian, Judaism, Muslim or something else is rife with magic and 'miracles'.

They also don't generally believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, Golems or any of the religion-based creatures that actually should exist if there was any truth to their beliefs.

Yet many still hold to the belief that all of creation was fabricated in a measly 6 days...

It all seems to be more than a little hypocritical to me, trying to tailor things to suit they're own ideas and sensibilities.



G.D.


----------



## JustRob

Megan Pearson said:


> Finally... Why Star Wars succeeded where Babylon 5 did not is because of consistency. Star Wars began with the mythic quest (1st three movies), and they _wisely_ brought in Fantasy writer Terry Brooks (_Sword of Shannara_) to maintain the fantasy worldview in their later movies. Star Wars' religious orientation is pantheism with some neopagan thought tossed in. Everything Star Wars did was _consistent_ in its worldview. However, Babylon 5 placed its ultimate value in reason and knowledge. Their mistake in focusing exclusively in the Rangers' movie (sorry if I'm giving someone's fav movie a bad rap!) was that the Rangers appealed to a knowledge system that could not be measured or reasonably explained except as being 'more advanced'. This is a Fantasy writer's answer and it ran contrary to the series' overriding reliance on naturalism's insistence on knowledge as having a reasonable explanation. The Rangers took it on faith.



I am a B5 fan and am a little concerned that you are judging the TV series by any of its unsuccessful spin-offs. Ignoring them, the main TV series failed because it was incredibly ambitious. For anyone to write a single story, which is what it was, with proper personal character arcs, that would take years to complete, was something never before attempted. The visual imagery was also beyond anything else on offer at the time. In comparison Star Wars has been a collection of films bolted together as needed. The fact that the first made reference to an earlier story meant little apart from allowing for the action in it to occur sooner. 

B5 was from the outset a continuing story in a way that compatible TV series, specifically the Star Trek collection, weren't. I can remember staff at my company urgently asked whether anyone had taped the latest episode because they'd missed it and missing just one episode could be critical. My angel and I have just started watching _Star Trek; Deep Space Nine_, the attempt by the Star Trek creators to put up a challenge to B5, from the beginning because we enjoy it for what it is, but it isn't in any way what B5 was.

The B5 TV series had problems because the TV company couldn't sustain it for enough years and then an irreplaceable key actor died, at which point no true B5 fan would have wanted the production to continue with a replacement. The proof that the story had always existed as a complete work from the outset was that the remainder was published as a series of books. I have a copy of the most important of these, now out of print, that provides the final scenes based on the original writer's personal notes.

I haven't looked in detail at the spin-off stories about the B5 Rangers as I don't have the books that cover their entire story outside of the audio-visual productions and in any case I am just a fan of the main B5 story. I am just concerned that you are confusing the two in referring to the Rangers' story as B5 when it is a very small element of the whole.

Regarding the actual thread subject, I always suggest Anne McCaffrey's books about the dragonriders of Pern as an example of the cross-genre ambiguity involved. The dragons were actually genetically engineered from much smaller lizards which had evolved an ability to transport almost instantly across time and space. So is that magic, fantasy or weird science? Who cares?

P.S.
Interestingly in B5 when humanity and the far more advanced Minbari come to terms the item of advanced technology that the Minbari give to humanity is ... artificial gravity. With all the nonsense that the average sci-fi story contains almost all spaceships appear to have that as a standard feature but in B5 apparently human spaceships were still spinning around to simulate it. So, does virtually every sci-fi space opera have that particular piece of "magic" in it? Once people can stand up any other form of magic, even light sabres, must be equally acceptable, mustn't it?

P.P.S.
Faith, religion, magic, technology ... semantics. The first use of lodestones in navigation is unknown, but it is certain that their users didn't know _how_ they worked but just that they did. Perhaps they too just called them "advanced technology" as a cop out.


----------



## epimetheus

JustRob said:


> the main TV series failed because it was incredibly ambitious.



By what metric did B5 fail? By just about any sensible metric (viewers, revenue, cultural legacy) it was a great success. Not as successful as Star Wars or Star Trek, but then they are amongst the most well known stories known to humanity.

 I always thought B5 had that magical sense of awe and wonder blended extremely well with science. For me that was the appeal. But yeah, the spin-offs were truly awful.


----------



## Guard Dog

Another series that managed a fairly decent mix of hard science fiction and magic was Space:1999.

You can find places to view it scattered across the internet without too much trouble.

And it's demise was due to the deterioration and collapse of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's relationship and marriage, by all accounts, not for any lack of success with the show its self. 


G.D.


----------



## JustRob

epimetheus said:


> By what metric did B5 fail? By just about any sensible metric (viewers, revenue, cultural legacy) it was a great success. Not as successful as Star Wars or Star Trek, but then they are amongst the most well known stories known to humanity.
> 
> I always thought B5 had that magical sense of awe and wonder blended extremely well with science. For me that was the appeal. But yeah, the spin-offs were truly awful.



It failed to reach the end of the story. That was its original ambition, to be one story that would genuinely take five years to complete. In contrast Star Trek's "five year mission" was apparently just to keep going on about anything anywhere for five years or however long it could. 

Withdrawal of funding was the first problem to beset B5 and delay production and then the death of Andreas Katsulas, who played the key character G'Kar, made it unimaginable for the series to resume as the central entwined fates of G'Kar and Londo Mollari ran throughout almost the entire story. Although the Shadow War ended in the TV series the consequences of the shadows being expelled weren't entirely covered. In particular the final story of David, son of John Sheridan and Delenn, being saved from the vengeful Drakh was omitted. David's existence and survival was the final statement of union between the humans and Minbari, so a key aspect of the overall story arc. It was covered in _Out of The Darkness_, the third book in the _Legions of Fire_ trilogy written later by Peter David, which is considered to be canonical as it was based on J. Michael Straczynski's own script notes.

Had the B5 story run to completion as a TV series then it would have truly been a success, but this failure was through no fault of anyone directly involved, simply the fickle nature of business concerns and human frailty. I have the same problem of course. My solitary story is possibly brilliant in conception but nobody is going to risk publishing a whole trilogy of novels by a novice writer, so I'll never write all of it. Even the story outline is known by almost nobody to judge whether my own suspicions about it are true. Ah well. I have lots else to do anyway, so my story will forever remain fictional.

P.S.
I suppose the other shortcoming to sporadic viewers was that one lost a lot of the benefit of the show if one just watched odd episodes rather than following the entire story. One episode of Star Trek or one Star Wars film is reasonable entertainment in itself but B5 placed a lot of emphasis on the long story although there were side stories along the way. Therefore there tend to be outright B5 fans rather than a wider casual acquaintance as happens with those other entertainment stables. For my angel and I to watch it again we bought the _Babylon Five; The Complete Universe_ DVD collection, which contains everything ever produced including the films. Even now I don't think we've watched all the spin-offs in it. I also acquired a second-hand copy of the book _Out of The Darkness_ for completeness.


----------



## epimetheus

JustRob said:


> It failed to reach the end of the story.



Where are you getting you're info from? It ran to the end: Michael Straczynski envisioned a 5 season story arch, and it went the 5 seasons. Andreas Katsulas didn't die until some time after that and G'Kar and Londo's story finished when Londo died. The biggest spanner in the works was actually that Michael O'Hare (Sinclair) withdrew after season one, but Straczynski had written plots for all the main characters should the actor leave. I can't imagine Star Wars surviving without Skywalker or Trek with Picard so kudos to Straczynski for keeping the contunuity, including one of the best time travel stories i've seen in sci fi. 

They also had to rush the end of the civil because they didn't know if season 5 would be funded. The final episode of season 4 was supposed to be the very last episode in the show and it does stick out a bit.

Haven't read the books though. I'm sure there's lots more in them (I would love to follow G'Kar and Lyta on their voyage to the Rim), but the original series limped to it's conclusion as Straczynski envisioned.


----------



## JustRob

epimetheus said:


> Where are you getting you're info from? It ran to the end: Michael Straczynski envisioned a 5 season story arch, and it went the 5 seasons. Andreas Katsulas didn't die until some time after that and G'Kar and Londo's story finished when Londo died. The biggest spanner in the works was actually that Michael O'Hare (Sinclair) withdrew after season one, but Straczynski had written plots for all the main characters should the actor leave. I can't imagine Star Wars surviving without Skywalker or Trek with Picard so kudos to Straczynski for keeping the contunuity, including one of the best time travel stories i've seen in sci fi.
> 
> They also had to rush the end of the civil because they didn't know if season 5 would be funded. The final episode of season 4 was supposed to be the very last episode in the show and it does stick out a bit.
> 
> Haven't read the books though. I'm sure there's lots more in them (I would love to follow G'Kar and Lyta on their voyage to the Rim), but the original series limped to it's conclusion as Straczynski envisioned.



Yes, now that you mention it I remember the false ending in series four which messed up the original plan, but I think the problem is that the story had quite a few time shifts which meant that just because a particular scene was shown doesn't mean that everything leading up to it was. Certainly I recollect the urn containing the keeper being given to David, but that part of the story couldn't have been completed within the series because Peter David put it in one of his books and it must have been part of Straczynski's original story line as the book was based on his script notes even though he apparently never wrote the full script. Certainly I recollect that after watching the original broadcast of the series ages ago I wondered what happened to David and didn't find out until we bought the complete DVD set. Hence to my mind the story was never completed on screen even though an ending, more than one even, may have been shown. The books were intended to tie up the loose ends and I doubt that the writer ever intended to leave any. He was too good for that as you say.

I didn't know that the changeover from Sinclair to Sheridan was a rehash, which proves just how well the writer integrated it into the story. In fact I wonder what the original story line could have been as Sinclair's disappearance from the series seemed to be essential to the plot from the very beginning. If he wasn't going to disappear the way that he did then why did the Minbari call off the war when they met him? It would be very interesting to know that.

However complete B5 was we clearly both agree that it was brilliant and deserves more recognition than it gets. Maybe one day someone will reboot it as everything else far less deserving seems to have been. 

I was wondering whether any other long running series had actually been a serial spanning a single story arc and thought that perhaps GoT, which my angel and I have never watched, not even a single episode, might be a candidate, but B5 is possibly unique in that it wasn't based on a pre-existing series of books but originally scripted from the outset.

*Returning to the thread subject as we should,* B5 certainly had its share of extremely advanced technology that to mere average races seemed like magic. In fact the Vorlons were regarded as supernatural beings for reasons explained in the series. Personally I don't require every aspect of a science fiction story to be explained and I didn't do that in my own solitary novel. In fact I allowed the idea that the central unexplained phenomenon was god-like in nature to prevail throughout the entire trilogy and beyond, it never being explained even though there were allusions to several explanations of it. It was even suggested at one point that praying to it might work and it did seem to, but prayer is itself possibly a predominantly psychological phenomenon, so that didn't prove anything. My story was about each of us having our own model of reality within our minds and terms like "magic", "supernatural" and "advanced technology" being very subjective, so I don't see any big issues here. As has already been said, the key thing is to be consistent. My god-like phenomenon followed rules that I defined behind the scenes; readers didn't need to know what they were though. Do that then; create rules to follow but don't reveal them, then your advanced technology may seem like magic to casual critics.

On the subject of creating rules, I included a fairy in my later unfinished novel, but not until I had worked out the aerodynamics of fairy flight to my own satisfaction. That changed the anatomy of my fairy from the traditional Victorian style and also solved the problem of how a fairy can sit in a chair without crumpling her wings. She was in fact a very practical fairy, but then she was a woman, so that wasn't surprising. Men can have such impractical fantasies, according to women anyway, I have learned in life ... Ah, I must go now and prepare for Sunday lunch.


----------



## escorial

are all faries female...


----------



## epimetheus

JustRob said:


> I didn't know that the changeover from Sinclair to Sheridan was a rehash, which proves just how well the writer integrated it into the story. In fact I wonder what the original story line could have been as Sinclair's disappearance from the series seemed to be essential to the plot from the very beginning. If he wasn't going to disappear the way that he did then why did the Minbari call off the war when they met him? It would be very interesting to know that.



Sinclair wasn't supposed to become Valen. No idea why the Minbari would stop the war then. Would love to see a reboot, so long as they stuck to Straczynski's vision. But given what they've done to Star Wars and Star Trek, maybe it's best they leave it alone: they are abject lessons in how to take the magic out of a story.


----------



## Phil Istine

escorial said:


> are all faries female...



Oberon wasn't.  He was King of the fairies in a Shakespeare play (Midsummer Night's Dream, I think, but it might have been another).


----------



## Guard Dog

Phil Istine said:


> Oberon wasn't.  He was King of the fairies in a Shakespeare play (Midsummer Night's Dream, I think, but it might have been another).



Phil, you have no idea how much more "Politically Correct" your answer to that question is, than the one that immediately came to _my_ mind. :wink:



G.D.


----------



## Phil Istine

Guard Dog said:


> Phil, you have no idea how much more "Politically Correct" your answer to that question is, than the one that immediately came to _my_ mind. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.



Yes I do, because my head is a strange place too


----------



## JustRob

Phil Istine said:


> Oberon wasn't.  He was King of the fairies in a Shakespeare play (Midsummer Night's Dream, I think, but it might have been another).



According to _Religion and the Decline of Magic _by Keith Thomas (not a light read by any means) "The name 'Oberon' or 'Oberion' was borne by a demon who had been frequently conjured by fifteenth- and sixteenth-century wizards, long before the title became associated with The King of the Fairies." Maybe he wasn't the best example to mention then.


----------



## Guard Dog

Phil Istine said:


> Yes I do, because my head is a strange place too



So... the male fairies 'swish' a little more than the females do  in your world too then? :icon_silent: :culpability:



G.D.


----------



## Azu

Hello everyone!

Thanks for keeping the thread alive to date!

Just to know, I already started writing the novels, especially combining 'magic' and technology or put it this way - using historic aesthetics like knights on stallions and futuristic technology like wielding graviton-powered lances and using armoured transformer-like colossuses - see in two threads - FIRST (old one which I plan to condense a lot and bring forward to the prologue part) and SECOND (first two chapters, hopefully will keep intact as is).

To comment and critique, please do so only on the second thread - (if you want to do on the first part, talk about it but on the second thread for convenience's sake).

Can't wait to see you all get thereto!


----------



## Justin Attas

Just read this post, and I love the aesthetic you've developed here. I've always been a huge fan of the mystic meeting the scientific. It can often be pulled off really well as just being straight up sci-fi, with uncivilized or primitive societies viewing the technologies as "magic". It helps to have the tech resemble traditional spellwork (manipulation of light/fire/electricity) that can be explained with science.


----------



## Smooth Jazz and 45 ACP

I'm personally not a big magic guy. Just not my cup of tea. I've been known to make some exceptions, but I've always had a big preference for Scifi. 

I do dabble with more fantastical elements from time to time, but I almost always try to find some technological explanation for it. Clarke's Third Law and all that. I'd be down for a story that isn't afraid to get into the nitty-gritty of magic and offer up scientific explanations and classifications for these supernatural abilities. "Midichlorians" (microscopic organisms that allowed one to interact with the Force) were dragged pretty hard by the Star Wars fanbase, but I actually don't mind them. I guess I'm just always looking for logic in things that aren't meant to be logical. Guess I'm a cynic :highly_amused:


----------



## Joker

I like to think the idea for my setting is unique.

The world was created by gods, you know the fairly standard fantasy stuff. But even though the gods no longer walk the planet in the flesh, man has continued to evolve technologically. My world now has a very cyberpunk feel, being kinda vaguely 22nd century.

I always thought the medieval stasis trope was dumb. It sure is convenient that there's always some meta excuse why fantasy worlds are stuck in the 14th century, if the author even bothers coming up with a reason at all. I'd love to see more science fantasy worlds that aren't Earth, but Star Wars is the only one that comes to mind.

The obsolescence of magic is a major theme in my book. The MC is a witch that hunts monsters, but both her profession and methods are considered quaint and silly by most people. Her spells are a lot less impressive in a world where you can just pull out a railgun and shoot the troll in the face.

Of course, the monsters that have adapted to the times are a lot stronger than their medieval counterparts could hope to be.


----------



## rodrigoborges

Sounds like you are on the right track.


----------



## BurntMason84

I think it's interesting!  Kinda like some of them said though, as long as it stays consistent.  A good reference for magic, to me at least, would be R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt series.  He knows how to temper magic, even though there is plenty of it, and in doing so, he really seems to blend physical with magical, and keep it consistent.  Just as you would with technology and magic it sounds like!

Would love to read snid-bits!


----------



## Rojack79

Ah Science Fantasy, my favorite genra of writing and currently the one I'm working with for my own novel. It generally depends on how you want your world to feel. Do you want to mix Hard Sci Fi with Hard Fantasy, or do you want Soft Sci-fi mixed with Soft Fantasy? If you go Hard then you have to have rules and more importantly stick to said rules, if you go Soft then go wild but try to avoid writing yourself into a corner or creating distracting plot holes.


----------



## Lee Messer

Keep the magic. Pick up a book on string theory... done.

Explain that all magic is only the perception of something not yet understood.

Ever seen a magic trick exposed?

What was it before you understood what actually happened? Yep it was magic.

If you see a wizard throw a fireball (cliche), was it magic, or was it a molotov cocktail?


----------

