posted
Have you ever wanted to beseige a city? I know I have.
My brother demonstrated to me a table-top-sized trebuchet he built. There are huge amounts of information about trebuchets (and seige engines in general) on the web. The best site, by far, is
(It's not always operating, however. Be patient). On the web, you can find everything from history to differential equations and finite element codes (the computer codes called "wintreb" and "trebstar" simulate trebuchet designs).
I don't know if y'all will find this interesting, but as an engineer and a history buff, I'm in love! I'm solving differential equations like a kid on Christmas morning!
Wha-wha-whatwasthat??! Did anybody else hear that? Naaah, I'm sure I didn't hear what I think I just heard. Did I?
Thanks for the resources, Chad. If you ever do tackle fantasy, knowing you to be the hard-science fiction type, I'd be interested in reading it. It would have to have a twist I've never seen before, without a doubt.
A trebuchet is a large catapult-like device developed in the middle ages. Rather than using tension in cords like an onager or mangonel, it used a huge, multi-tonne counterweight to drive the throwing arm.
Trebs were typically used for simple seige purposes; that is, throwing large objects to hit the walls.
Sometimes people used them to toss bloated, beplauged bodies into the town under seige. Occasionally, messengers or ambassadors were sent home via trebuchet.
I'm interested because it gives you the capability to use the standard hard-SF techniques in a fantasy setting.
posted
It was funny. And I know what a trebuchet is. I just found it mildly disturbing/confusing/wierd/twilight-zone-y. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I personally think that the best fantasy should be written from a "hard" SF perspective (if by hard you mean rigorous attention to known science).
Remember, a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
From a more serious standpoint, I hate fantasy where the magic is allowed to have effects that are simply impossible (or more commonly, doesn't cause things that it would logically cause). I also distrust magic that seems disproportionate, such as when a man, eating the normal amount of food and so forth, is able to grow in size by a factor of ten at will or produce gigajoules of work or somesuch thing. I happen to think that basing your magic on hypothetical advanced technology is a good way to avoid this (and it's even good hard SF since current science suggests that technologically advanced civilizations may well have existed, and even visited Earth, prior to the existence of human life).
I don't think that a writer should ever reveal that magical artifacts are in fact hypertechnological artifacts, unless there is a POV character in the story that would actually know or suspect that somehow. That would be an inappropriate violation of POV, and would simply detract from the story.
posted
I beg to differ in one thing: Because our world works this way, or these things are true in our world, doesn't mean they are true everywhere. I mean we are just a tiny planet in the Universe. Who knows what laws may apply elsewhere? Who knows what creatures may live there? Well, no-one; and no-one will ever know everything, for the Cosmos is infinite as someone's imagination is. So everything is possible! I know you may argue that, if you write about something impossible in our world, you'll sell fewer copies of your book, but it all depends on what you want to do. Art or sell copies? If it's the second, then definatly you should stay in this world! Posts: 80 | Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted
Well, the other thing to remember is, write what you enjoy!
If you like pure fantasy, write it, read it, etc. I prefer hard SF, so I work the numbers to make sure my story is scientifically justifiable before I ever boot MS-Word.
But, hey, that's just me.
-----
quote: I just found it mildly disturbing/confusing/wierd/twilight-zone-y.
Thank you for the compliment! (No sarcasm intended.)
[This message has been edited by chad_parish (edited December 05, 2001).]
posted
Survivor, I think you're missing the definition in the word 'fantasy'. While I have no problem with hard-SF (it may not be my particular cup of tea, but I recognise that is for others), fantasy is exactly that: a fantasy. The story should be fantastical, there should be almost ridiculous occurrences and unbelievable things: dragons are not particularly likely, but a central part of fantasy. So why ruin fantasy by asking for it to be realistic? Realistic fantasy is historical novels. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
This has little to do with writing, but last week I had my engineering students building various tabletop seige machines. Near the end of every semester, I conduct a miniature verson of the TLC show Junkyard Wars:
I give four teams a pile of junk and 90 minutes to complete a project. This semester they had to build machine to throw a tennis ball over a "mote" and hit a cardboard castle. I gave them this very page as a resource, although none of them made a trebuchet.
I'm looking for suggestions for next semester, BTW.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited December 07, 2001).]
posted
Well, I for one don't find any story very interesting if the writer seems willing to let anything happen, no matter how ridiculous. After all, most of us implicitly are considering the (seemingly) probable consequences of fantastic ideas when we say, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?"
I imagine that despite what some of you have said, you would all find a story in which there was no logical connection between one action and the next, where characters obeyed no underlying constraints in what they chose to do and where any event could occur, no matter how stupendous, and still have no effect on persons or objects within the story that would seem likely to be affected.
Rules are what make logic, and logic is what makes a story a story. If there is no way of predicting what might happen, then there is no way of building tension (because there is never any situation that your characters cannot simply escape or survive through some inexplicable magic). If you can't build any form of dramatic tension, then there is never any reason for the audience to care about the characters (calling them that is actually a misnomer, since they can't have any "character" without underlying characteristics that determine which actions are possible to them).
In the end, you are left with nothing but comedy, and very low comedy at that. We all like to watch the Simpsons have wacky adventures, but we don't actually care if they live or die (in fact, we know that if they do happen to die, then they'll be back in a later episode, if we want). No matter what happens to them, we only laugh.
Which is okay...for comedy.
On a completely different note, I have a junkyard idea. Have them build a castle, one that can support a fifty pound weight two feet off the ground, say, but flimsy enough to be knocked down by a very light blow--perhaps measured at 1/10 of a newton-meter--or better yet delivered using some set device...perhaps the winning catapult from this contest.
Note, this will be more fun if you put the unlucky "Mr. Bill" or some equally lovable but unlucky character within the protective walls of the castle
posted
There must be logic in a story, yes, I do agree.
But, it's perfectly allright to say that pigs can fly, if they always fly in your story. If they stop flying for no reason, then the story looses its logical sequence.
posted
Obviously you need logic. I never said you didn't. But magic should be just that: magic. No science and that, just magical. Okay, he made a fireball between his hands and threw it at someone. Why weren't his hands burnt? Magic. THink: who'd create a fireball if he couldn't stop his hands being burnt. Why'd that man grow to ten times his size? Magic. Nothing to do with food and that, it's just magic. If a spell makes you grow, it makes you grow. That's where the growth comes from. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
i think this has gotten off-topic, but what the heck...
i think the nature of magic in a story is never really set. it's not ALWAYS just magic, and the magic isn't ALWAYS based on fundamental quasi-scientific principles--if you will. it depends on the characters.
for example, in a story with human-like creatures, it is likely that magic is not open to everyone, someone has found a way to monopolize it, someone is struggling to find or "has found" a logical pattern behind it or a god (gods) to attribute it to, or etc. these things don't have to play a central role, but if such very human situations aren't there, characters get frustrating.
on the other hand, if you have very UNhuman characters, the game changes. magic can be just magic and rather spontanious in its results, as long as at least some of the characters don't find this strange, there is some forshadowing that this may occur, and it doesn't render the characters invulnerable.
posted
It's your world, story, and audience. I happen to be a huge fantasy nut and I don't care where magic comes from, but I do care that it is consistent in its limitations. E.g. the aforementioned fireball doesn't turn into a frosty cold orangutan, midspell. E.g. there is a finite amount of magic to be used in a certain time frame (six year old wizard doesn't just sit all day making objects in the house turn into teddy bears).
I'm sorry to disagree with some, but if you turn magic into science then magic loses all potence and science becomes laughable.
Of course there is logic, and no one is invincible. Yes, there must be conflict to overcome for there to be character growth, but suspense is built in the mind of the reader. If you convince the reader that they are actually watching your story unfold in your world instead of sitting under a blanket on the couch then you have achieved your goal, with scientific magic or not.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
