posted
"To effect the world" would mean "to cause the world to come into existence". "To affect the world" means to cause a change in the already existing world.
I didn't mean someone would have to cause the world to come into existence before I believed they had psionic powers.
Affect is here used as a verb, not a noun. Used as a noun, "to cause an affect on the world" your point would be acknowledged. I just happen to find the phrase "to cause an effect on the world" more cumbersome than "to affect the world" (plus, I love using both verb and noun form to confuse you all )
By the way, 2000 years ago, English and the word "magic" as we know it didn't exist. The original Latin word they would probably have used instead would have been nearly identical in meaning to our modern word, technology.
So yes, they would have used a different word because they spoke a different language.
I don't see what that has to do with the case. The word would have meant, "a set of methods and techniques."
And if you don't believe me, look up whence the words for magic, witch, wizard, and so forth actually came.
quote:[Middle English wicche, from Old English wicce, witch, and wicca, wizard, sorcerer. See weg- in Indo-European Roots.]
The origin of "wizard":
quote:[Middle English wisard : wise, wise; see wise1 + -ard, pejorative suff.; see -ard.]
Now, here's the really interesting one. As Survivor pointed out, 2000 years ago there was no English. The prevailing culture at the time (at least in Europe) was the Roman Empire, so the word used for the idea of "magic" would probably have been Latin. The etymology of "magic" (emphasis mine)
quote:[Middle English magik, from Old French magique, from Late Latin magica, from Latin magic, from Greek magik, from feminine of magikos, of the Magi, magical, from magos, magician, magus. See magus.]
Funny, I don't see any reference to technology in any of those word origins.
And please, Survivor, don't try to argue that the ancient Romans had no concept of magic; the stories of their gods (borrowed/stolen fromn the Greeks) are filled with magic.
posted
While this is all very interesting, I think it's leading us even farther away from the topic at hand.
Survivor's opinion, as I understand it, is that ONE possible price for magic use in a fantasy universe is the demystification of the magic itself. Magic becomes a technology whose mundane secrets are horded by the few in order to take advantage of the many.
Survivor, may we concede your point then move on to other possibilities?
posted
I watched part of Superman (the original movie) last night. I thought I had liked it as a child, but last night I could only get through half of it before turning it off. I believe it is the epitome of what NOT to do.
First of all, Superman is TOO POWERFUL! He can hear anything. (And conveniently enough this does not pose any interference problems, he can just seem to know what he needs to hear. The origin of his magical abilities is cheesy and the story keeps changing. They added his powers one at a time. He didn't used to be able to fly, for example. And his limitations are almost nonexistant. So he can't see through lead? Oh no! Of course because he believes in "Truth, justice, and the American Way" he tells everyone about his weakness so the bad guy can exploit him. That was his only real limitation. That and Kryptonite, the weakest cop out of a limitation I've ever seen.
BUT...he's the most popular superhero ever. So what does that tell us? I'm not sure, maybe you can figure it out.
Actually, the other problem I had with the movie was the EXTREME black and white nature of the hero and villain, but that's for another thread.
posted
Survivor, if the debate were between your definition and mine, I lack the charisma and elegant eloquence with which you seem to operate, I would be obligated to concede or sound like a fool.
However, instead, I went straight to the source, this according to Merriam-Webster:
quote:Main Entry: 1ef·fect Pronunciation: i-'fekt, e-, E- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin effectus, from efficere to bring about, from ex- + facere to make, do -- more at DO <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=do> 1 a : PURPORT <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=purport>, INTENT <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intent> b : basic meaning : ESSENCE <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=essence> 2 : something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent) 3 : an outward sign : APPEARANCE <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=appearance> 4 : ACCOMPLISHMENT <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=accomplishment>, FULFILLMENT <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fulfillment> 5 : power to bring about a result : INFLUENCE <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=influence> <the content itself of television ... is therefore less important than its effect -- Current Biography> 6 plural : movable property : GOODS <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=goods> <personal effects> 7 a : a distinctive impression <the color gives the effect of being warm> b : the creation of a desired impression <her tears were purely for effect> c (1) : something designed to produce a distinctive or desired impression -- usually used in plural (2) plural : SPECIAL EFFECTS <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=special+effects> 8 : the quality or state of being operative : OPERATION <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=operation> <the law goes into effect next week> - in effect : in substance : VIRTUALLY <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=virtually> <the ... committee agreed to what was in effect a reduction in the hourly wage -- Current Biography> - to the effect : with the meaning <issued a statement to the effect that he would resign>
Very fitting for what I believe you are trying to say. Especially definition five. Now let us look at the word you selected:
quote: Main Entry: 1af·fect Pronunciation: 'a-"fekt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin affectus, from afficere 1 obsolete : FEELING <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=feeling>, AFFECTION <dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=affection> 2 : the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes
All from the horse's mouth. regardless of how you justify it, the simple fact is that "affect," is a derivitave of "Affection," and is an integral of emotional responses. I do not believe that if the more fitting of the two words for what you were saying.
To "affect," the world would be to effect the peoples' opinions and attitudes rather than any physical or metaphysical influence.
But, regardless, say what you'd like. I make more mistakes than you, I am sure. But I am not unwilling to admit that.
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited February 23, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited February 23, 2004).]
posted
might I suggest that you carry the affect/effect question to another thread and let this one go back to its purpose? In fact, I'll go ahead and do it myself.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Well, that issue having been cleared away....
The magic of the classical world was entirely based on rituals, talismans (created by rituals) and the use of power existing in the natural world. Anyone could use any magic, if they learned how it was done.
Method. Artifact. Natural forces.
I really shouldn't have to string this together for you all. I think you're all just disagreeing for the heck of it.
Nexus is half right. I think that if a person learns to use magic, then it is demystified for that individual. It is no longer 'magic'. It may still be art, indeed, must seem a greater art to those that know the real difficulties of performing magic. Real magic isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and saying 'abracadabra'. And a necessary cost of teaching magic openly is that magic loses some of its power over the human imagination.
But if you're going to be a writer...and that's what we're discussing here, you need to demystify the magic of your own work. It cannot be magic to you, or you'll flub it because you won't know what you're doing.
quote:I really shouldn't have to string this together for you all. I think you're all just disagreeing for the heck of it.
Yes, you caught us. Everyone on the board knows you're right, but we were conspiring to disagree with you in order to drive you mad. Mad, I say! Mwahahahah!
Oops. Did I just type that out loud?
Still, we've made some progress here, Survivor, in that you are now using the phrase "real magic" in a context that indicates you are not thinking of it as an oxymoron.
quote:But if you're going to be a writer...and that's what we're discussing here, you need to demystify the magic of your own work. It cannot be magic to you, or you'll flub it because you won't know what you're doing.
I agree with the sentiment here, even if I do not like the way you have expressed it. If you would accept the following rewording, then we might be getting close to agreement:
[Y]ou need to demystify the magic of your own work. [Magic] cannot be [a mystery] to you, or you'll flub it because you won't know what you're doing.
posted
Ok, I will say this, Survivor is right about the writer knowing the limits of magic in his story. But there is an element in his statement that just doesn't ring true.
The writer of Fantasy fiction must also believe in the magic, otherwise it would come across as false. Just as an S.F. writer must believe that inter-galactic travel is possible,or FTL travel or a myriad of other "possibilies" in that genre.
As a writer you must be true to your story, its characters and the laws that govern that world. If "magic" is to be, well.. magical, you must have some belief in it, or you are going to fail at getting your reader to believe it.
The only exception would be, that you want the "technology"(for lack of a better word) of the magic to be widely known in that story. But that is a scenario that the writer would also have to buy into wholly or fail miserably.
You must believe in what you write, it is a truism for all genres. Someone told me recently that you have to be a stickler for realism in your genre. In this case, magic would be a realism in Fantasy fiction.
People can spot a fake at fifty paces, even without the Lenses of True-seeing. If you as a writer, de-bunk magic for yourself, all you write about magic will be BUNK!
quote:I think that if a person learns to use magic, then it is demystified for that individual. It is no longer 'magic'.
I don't think I agree with that. I think one of the defining facts of magic is that even those who use it cannot explain how it works... that is what separates it from being a science.
posted
I must say that magick does exist. There are few types of magick that are not merely spiritualistic rites or scams. Some branches of magick are so complex that it cannot be explained by the magick-user. Some seem simple, but cannot be explained by strictly scientific means. Usually it is explained away as the work of some diety or another. How would one go about scientifically explaining a god? For it truly is a form of religion, and can be as easily explained away as the miracles of the Christian God. Even this God has strains of magick-users (calling themselves Ogdoadic or Gnostic) who derive their power from God. Try to explain how their magick works. For, as TruHero stated,
quote:If "magic" is to be, well.. magical, you must have some belief in it, or you are going to fail at getting your reader to believe it.
Belief is an integral part of magick. But I wander. The thread is entitled 'Price or Technology.' Since technology is the application of knowledge (according to Merriam-Webster) magick is technology. However, magick comes with a price. No magick (except in obviously fake storybooks) can be done without some cost. In minor spells, potions, etc. the only cost is time and resources, but as things that become more and more unnatural, the cost becomes greater. For example, a simple love potion requires little, since it could happen naturally, whereas a rite designed to cure a dying cat that faces certain death from disease requires much more from the spellcaster.
I agree with Jules with his opinion of the above quote. Since magick is technology, then it only follows, according to that logic, that if a person learns to use technology, then it is demystified for that individual and is no longer 'technology'. This makes no sense.
quote:The writer of Fantasy fiction must also believe in the magic, otherwise it would come across as false. Just as an S.F. writer must believe that inter-galactic travel is possible,or FTL travel or a myriad of other "possibilies" in that genre.
I disagree completely.
As writers of science fiction and fantasy fiction, we do not ask our readers to believe what we say about FTL travel or magic. All we ask is that they suspend their disbelief about such things so they can enjoy the story.
It does not matter whether the author believes that forming a pentagram with the blood of a goat and chanting certain phrases in Latin will summon a demon. What matters is that the writer not make it hard for the reader to maintain suspension of disbelief. (Fred began chanting in Latin, "Demono Comeo Hereo Nowo.")
Knowing how your magical system works helps you to write about it believably, but that does not mean you have to believe in it.
posted
I think I will take the middle ground, Fahrion and Eric. You both have points, and perhaps y9ou are both even saying the same thing without realizing it.
I am sure Fahrion does not mean that you should actually belive in something you made up out of your head the way I believe that when I type this message and his "Submit Reply" that it will be posted to the message board and you can read it. I *know* that will happen.
On the other hand, when I am writing my novel, I envision the characters as if they were real. I make the scenes come alive inside my own mind. The magical system works there, as does the scientific system. (In my current novel both exist.) For the duration of my writing session, and for that matter, any time I am thinking about the story, the magic does work. The technology does work. The characters are real.
I think this is actually suspended disbelief rather than belief, because it feels like the same sense in which I believe a novel or short story I am reading. The best novels and short stories feel real to me for a time, even after I close the book. I sometimes dream about my favorite books, the characters continuing the story inside my own head at night because it was that real. But I don't really *believe* in them. I have simply managed to suspend my disbelief so well that they were integrated into my life for a short time.
So to make a long story short (too late) you are both right.
posted
EJC, You are taking my statement too literally. I was just trying to make a comparison. Sorry for the confusion. I am not going to go out in my backyard and try some of that stuff to see if it works! I know it probably won't. Just like a S.F writer isn't going to go out in his backyard and build a spaceship and try to travel to the next galaxy or back in time. Come on Man, give me a little credit! It is all about the possiblities, and making them seem real to your reader. You and Christine just beat me to the punch, suspend disbelief, I was going to say that! I realized this morning that people would most likely take my statement "Literally" and was going to change it. You just got there before I did.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Sep 2003
|
Sorry. I guess after reading that line I didn't read the rest of your message carefully enough, because I see now that some of the things you said imply that you didn't mean it literally.
posted
Of course, SF writers (and readers) do go into labs and try to make their imagined devices work all the time.
And they actually pull it of a fair amount of the time, too.
Sorry for any confusion about this, but when I said "real magic", I meant magic as actually practiced in the real world. To me, the fact that stage magicians know what their doing and how doesn't make their magic any less 'real'. Magic that can't work in the real world (the kind we find in most Fantasy) isn't real magic, it is pretend magic.
That's what I usually mean by "real", as opposed to 'pretend'.
But I agree with you about the suspension of disbelief vs. actual belief thing...Fahrion's little post actually kind of creeped me out grinning to hide my unease
Throughout human history (and outside it as well) people have really performed magic. And how did they do it? They kept the method secret, arcane, mystical. That is what makes magic...well, magic. That is always what has made 'magic' magic.
Everytime we demystify the methods, artifacts, and natural forces used to perform a marvel, we turn it from magic into technology...but it was already technology to us, the wonder workers. When people first trapped lightning in a jar, it was a potent form of magic...the use of arcane knowledge and devices to capture the power of the gods. When we started explaining to all comers how to do it themselves...it stopped being magic. That doesn't mean that Franklin and those sorts had any actual idea how lightning worked or what it really was...they had no idea. But once everyone knew how it was done, it wasn't magic anymore.
To wield magical power, you must keep the technique arcane, unknown to the masses. But that doesn't mean that you can get away with not knowing the technique yourself. This is so painfully obvious I am almost ashamed to say it (as Screwtape would say ).
posted
OK, Survivor, I'll try to fight on your terms.
Real magic is what stage magicians do.
Magicians know the technology of what they do. Magicians do what they do using the technology relevant to their disciple. There is no real mystery in it; even when they see another magician perform something they've never seen, they generally have a good idea of how it might be done.
Computer engineers know the technology of what they do. But we do not call them "technologists" -- that is far too broad a term. They are called computer engineers. And we do not simply call what they do with their technology "technology," because we have a more specific label for it: computer engineering.
Meteorologists know the technology of what they do. But we do not call them "technologists," we call them meteorologists. And what they do with their technology is "meteorology," not just "technology."
I could give more examples, but I'm sure you get the idea.
As I said earlier, magicians know the technology of what they do. But to use the general label of "technologists" for them would be ridiculous. We have a specific label for people involved with that sort of technology: we call them magicians. And we also have a label for what they do with their technology: magic.
To say that magicians are not doing magic -- even though they understand it technologically -- is like saying computer engineers are not doing computer engineering, they're just doing technology.
If the label "magic" does not apply to what magicians do with their technology, then what is the proper label?
What makes 'magic' magic is that the technology is arcane.
It is that simple. Modern stage magicians might use all sorts of different technologies to perform their tricks, but it is magic because they hide their methods from the audience. If they didn't hide the method, then it wouldn't be magic.
That is the heart of what I'm saying. Magic is arcane technology, if the technology is no longer arcane, it is not magic. I think this argument started because I said that about someone's milieu...it had a demystified psionic technology which everyone still called magic. This has never happened in the whole of human history. Once everyone knows (or so they think) how the trick is down, nobody calls it magic anymore.
Of course, they might still treat it like magic, but that is another argument entirely
posted
And since it was my millieu, I'll go ahead and bite here and try to defend the use of the term magic in that instance. I've been thinking about it ever since and I hold with my original decision, but for a different reason than I originally had.
If someone learned a manner through which all humans could move objects with their mind, they would either call it levitation or telekinesis. (In today's scifi culture, it would probably be the lat ter, but in tomorrow's culture, if this really could happen, they might even come up with a third term we haven't thought of yet.) If all humans could hop from one place to another in the blink of an eye we'd probably call it teleportation. If everyone could change the chemical composition of something to turn it into something else I'm not sure what the scifi name for it is, perhaps we'd go to the Harry Potter books and call it transfiguration, or perhaps someone will have a better idea. Pyrokinesis, telepathy, empathy, telkinesis, metamophasis (?): all these terms could be applied to the individual things that all humans could be taught to do with his or her mind. They would be demystified, and part of the point of my story is that some even find it boring and mundane.
But....what about if a human could be taught to do all of the above? Would we call these things, as a group, technology? I don't think so, especially not if we did them through unlocking a potential in our own brains we never knew we had. I think we would lump them together and call them magic. (or maybe magick). And frankly, though everyone could do it, only a few would REALLY understand it -- the neuroscientists who study the brain. Everyone else would be like our internet generation, wavering in varying levels of ignorance. ("I don't have a modem. Can you please send me the internet on a 3.5" floppy disk?" Sorry, heard that one yesterday and couldn't resist.)
I could be wrong, but as I doubt this will ever really happen, you'll have difficulty proving it. In the meantime I will take advantage of my artistic license to use whatever words I want to.
posted
Survivor insists that magick is merely magick because it is 'arcane'. The example of stage magic is not necessarily relevent because it is merely tricks, not technology. It is like writing- you hide things in the story to keep the audience interested. If everyone can perform some form of magick, does that mean it is no longer magick? If we agree that magick is technology, then it would be like saying that if everyone knows how to use a computer it is no longer technology. Since magick is the application of magickal knowledge, then no it will be magick no matter what. However, magick has gained a stigma that those who practice it find convenient. It avoids a lot of complicated theological and scientific questions. I must agree with Christine to a degree here.
You speak of 'demystification', but I doubt that much of this 'demystification' can occur. Nor can everyone perform magick, or want to, when the costs of this are exposed.
posted
Okay. I'll try again. For the sake of our discussion, let's redefine "magic" as "pretend magic." No one here is trying to make the argument that magic works in the real world. (If you believe that it does, I'm not trying to offend.)
Armed with our new concept of magic, let's look at the price of magic in some well known fiction. (I'll try to keep the spoilers out.)
In OSC's "Seventh Son," Alvin Maker has to pay a price for his innate magical abilities. A force, which first manifests as the Hatrack River, tries to destroy him at every opportunity.
The price Frodo paid in "The Lord of the Rings" was to a constant battle against the corruption of his mind and soul.
In Piers Anthony's Xanth series, each person is born with one unique magical talent. I'm not sure of the price for this one. Perhaps your role in life is pre-determined, because that ability can never be changed or removed.
Does anyone agree/disagree with these examples? Do you have any other examples?
quote:That is the heart of what I'm saying. Magic is arcane technology, if the technology is no longer arcane, it is not magic. . . . Once everyone knows (or so they think) how the trick is [done], nobody calls it magic anymore.
And once again, you are letting your cultural bias show. You come from a society in which just about everything is explained from a technological/scientific perspective, so the labels you would choose for explaining a phenomenon that you previously did not understand would be technological/scientific.
If I concentrate on a rock and cause it to rise into the air by tapping into energy from the environment and forcing it to do what I want, you would call it telekinesis.
People from 1692 Salem, Massachusetts, would call it witchcraft.
Even if I demonstrated that it was a simple skill that could be learned by anybody, you would still call it telekinesis, and they would still call it witchcraft.
Now, let's assume that the history of Salem, Massachusetts went a little differently once I taught the residents to levitate objects. Instead of hanging the entire town population as witches, they decide that witchcraft isn't such a bad thing after all. They set up the Salem School of Witchcraft, and the town does a thriving business of teaching out-of-towners how to do witchcraft.
Pretty soon, one of the teachers discovers that it is possible to start fires using the same energy source that can be used for lifting things. This is a wonderful development, making flint & steel obsolete. The demand for schooling in witchcraft goes up.
Over the years, more ways to use witchcraft are discovered. Salem builds a College of Advanced Witchcraft studies.
Soon there are specialized names for various subdisciplines of witchcraft: levitation, pyromancy, animation.
By the late 1800s, someone has used animation to create a horseless carriage.
In 1969, a highly advanced levitation spell is able to lift a man to the Moon and bring him back safely.
And in 2004, Survivor argues that the word "magic" only applies to arcane witchcraft. If the witchcraft is no longer arcane, it is not magic.
posted
Okay, back to the real world, and our real history.
Plenty of 'tricks' that rely on natural principles used to be magic, were eventually demystified, and stopped being 'magic'.
The witchcraft of England and Salem depended heavily on a very old trick, the secret society. Basically, you get together a secret group who has meetings out in the forest periodically to set agenda's and membership and so forth. But in order to keep everyone else from catching on and figuring out who's in the group, you have codes and signs and so forth.
When a member of the group wants to get something done, he or she uses a ritual that indicates what ought to be done and to whom it ought to be done. Then another member of the secret group arranges for it to happen while the requesting member has an alibi. There were two reasons for this. The most obvious (and probably original) reason is because most of the requests were for bad stuff to happen to an enemy...and it was so that the instigators could 'prove' they couldn't have had anything to do with it. The secondary reason is that if you can do stuff when you aren't there, then you can exert some measure of control over people that are actually well beyond your reach, because they have no way of knowing whether or not you can get them.
This is why our culture typically regarded magic as a bad thing, because the most common form of 'magic' in a significant portion of our history was carried out by a criminal conspiracy bent on hurting people.
But enough of that. The Puritans were quite resistant to calling any useful technology magic. When the Indians gave them maize and other completely new foods and showed them how to cultivate it (and many of the cultivation methods were totally unlike anything the Puritans had experienced), they didn't call it magic. Maybe they should have, it isn't like they knew how it worked, but they didn't.
If I went back to that time and showed them various pieces of useful technology, they would resist calling it magic. To them, magic meant arcane methods of hurting people.
But that's really a side discussion. My point is that I can make an argument based on the 'facts' of a story I make up out of my own head just as easily as anyone.
Look, if I levitate a rock using my mental powers, and all the people in Salem see this...what would be wacky? I know, they all think that I'm the Second Coming and start worshipping me. We go around, I doing my levitating trick and they all worshipping me, and convince everyone else in the world that I'm God.
In 2004 (I've figured out some other tricks since then), I tell you all to not call what I do 'magic' and you all obey me because, after all, I happen to be God.
The above story doesn't prove anything except that I can blaspheme with the best if I like. The powers I would be using to rule you all would still be magic, because I'd be hiding the true method by which I accomplish all my tricks.
Anyway, I've got to disagree with some of the 'prices of magic' that Nexus has brought up.
Alvin Maker pays various prices for all his talents...but mostly he suffers from consequences, consequences that care little whether he's accomplishing his feats by innate 'magical' abilities or by learned technology. And while I haven't read all those books, I seem to recall that the term 'magic' is rarely used and is generally a pejorative in that series.
Frodo doesn't pay that price for using magic, he pays that price simply by being near the ring of power. In ordinary terms we would call it temptation. Sauron is the one who paid a price to make the ring, and its seductive effect on mortals is part of his design, not part of the price of making it.
I don't know that I'd bring up Xanth in a serious discussion of how to write good fantasy, but I'll guess that there is no real price for that one...just as Anthony didn't seem to write in any realistic consequences for magic use.
posted
I think that Survivor has missed the point here, in that what some people seem to be trying to say is that the labels we use come from our cultural perspective. There is no reason why an alternative culture would not use the word magic to describe special powers/abilities/ knowledge, but the word would therefore have a different contextual meaning to them.
As for magic having to be understood to be used, or even mystical, are we ignoring all those fantasy books based on people having innate abilities? In most contexts elves are creatures of magic. I am fairly sure that they would never be called creatures of technology... but then who knows - some people would say anything to prove a point...
Which reminds me... are there any bets on how many words Survivor will finish posting on this thread?
There are a lot of people talking about the real world as if it is relevant (or even understood). The fact is fantasy readers are creating their own worlds, with their own definitions and contexts. Because those worlds have developed in different ways to our own, the context will therefore be different, as will the psychology of the people involved. For us to use the word magic to describe levitation seems unrealistic, but for people from a different background then why not?
Of course just to soothe Survivors ego, the word magike, used by the greeks, was often used in combination with the word techne... So magike techne... meaning something like spiritual art (rough translation)...
And yes techne meant art... gasp of horror... not science but an art form. And in some ways I think we are confusing technology with science. While you could have a 'magical' technology, surely the underlying theory behind it would be a science?
Please somebody prove me wrong, I need a laugh today
Even assuming you are completely right about the word "magic" as used in the real world throughout all of history (and I am not conceding that you are), your strict definition (if it's not arcane, it's not magic) is fairly useless both for understanding and for writing fantasy fiction, because it does not reflect the way the word is used in that context.
The basic idea you have is useful: In fantasy fiction where the use of magical power is understood by at least some of the people, those who understand it would probably think of it technologically -- as a tool to be used to accomplish things. They would not be in awe of it.
But there is no reason why they cannot call that power "magic," because within the fantasy genre, the power by which a person casts spells is generically refered to as "magic."
You may continue to argue for your strict definition, but unless you can show how using your definition rather than the looser one generally accepted in fantasy is useful to those who want to write fantasy fiction, I don't think it really matters.
Survivor, If you were seen levitating a rock in Salem in that time frame, they wouldn't have raised you to deity status. More possibly they would have cut out your tongue, so you couldn't blaspheme or cast a spell on them. Then you would have promptly been burned at the stake.
2004 wouldn't be a possibility for you at that point. Unless, when you were burned to death you were somehow able to send your essence to another plane to wait for your chance to send your it back into the prime material and inhabit say... this BB. AAAAAHHHHHH! RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!!!!
Seroiusly, the idea of magic that we should be discussing really pertains to the worlds which, we as Fantasy writers create. That "pretend magic" as Survivor put it, is the stuff that you have to bring in to some form of percieved reality. If you can get your reader to buy in to that then you have succeeded.
There are a few rules about magic in fantasy that should be followed. Unless Deity intervention is a factor. 1. Balance: no person should be all powerful.
2. Consequence: there has to be something exacted from the Mage/Wizard/Sorceror etc... that would make most people think twice or forty times about trying to cast a spell.(note the absence of the word magician)
3. Nature: you should maintain a balance in nature and magic shouldn't change that beyond recognition.
4. Intelligence: your Magic-user should be in the upper percentile of the populous where brains are concerned.
There are other rules as well but this would be a good platform to build magic on.
As far as good examples of a price or consequence for magic-use goes there were some excellent stories mentioned at the beginning of this thread (see page 1). Weis and Hickman have pretty much mastered this in all of their books.
Here is a list: THE DRAGONLANCE SERIES, THE DEATH GATE CYCLE, DARKSWORD TRILOGY, THE SOVEREIGN STONE TRILOGY. There are other writers who also do a very good job, but I think Weis and Hickman have it nailed. If you haven't read any of these, you should definately check at least some of them out. I use them as reference material all the time. I could give specifics but I don't want my post to be longer than Survivor's. So if you want examples I will post them later if anyone is interested.
I would really like to get away from the Un-masking of magic discussion and get back the original intent of this thread.
quote:Let's discuss some theories of how magic is used in fantasy stories.
posted
I'm only quibbling over the meaning of the word magic because everyone else had to stick in on it.
But the fact remains, if you want the magic in your Fantasy writing to be 'magical'...then you have to make it arcane. As for calling it magic....
I don't think that it should be called magic if it isn't magical. 'Nuff said...I really haven't said anything else on the subject.
Read Poul Anderson's essayOn Thud and Blunder and ask yourself, does realism have anything to do with convincing Fantasy? If not, then be on your merry way. If so...well, why are you arguing with me?
This goes for most other terms connected with magic use as well, by the way. Saying that you're casting a spell is essentially synonymous with saying you're using magic. It is a mere tautology to state that "the power by which a person casts spells is generically refered to as 'magic'." That's why you call it 'casting a spell'
Defining magic as essentially arcane in nature isn't a strict definition, it is the very core of what makes magic magical.
Oh, and TruHero, your bigoted notions about the superstitious ignorance of the Puritans are hardly the basis of an argument. I admit, it would be wacky for them to think I was God (which is why I offered that as a wacky possibility), but it would be equally (or a little more, actually) wacky for them to simply assault and kill a guy for happening to stand near a floating rock (or even claiming to have levitated it). They weren't...never mind.
P.S. Tolkien's Elves claimed that most of their arts were non-magical, and their particularly magical arts were...arcane. Read his books sometime.
posted
I do not doubt that most people have read those books, Survivor. I will abandon my former vein at Nexus' suggestion. This thread was not created to quibble over minor differences in words (affect/effect).
There are many forms of magic written about in F/SF. Of these I have read of:
inner power that is, in essence, magic,
the drawing of this power from the environment or surroundings,
the drawing of power from talismans,
the only the use of talismans,
runes,
potions, and
rites.
There are many different ways magic has been portrayed, and all of them have originated from ancient 'mythology'. Many of the prices are pure physical and mental exhaustion, especially as in Christopher Paolini's novel ERAGON, and often in other stories. Another price is magical imbalance that may lead to such side effects as blindness and pain (as in L.E.Modesitt, Jr.'s Recluse series). Sometimes the price is simply social ostrocizion (sp?) as in Akhana Rishayo's 'A Merchant's Daughter'.
As far as Tolkein goes, he shows good balance in Magic, although he does have some all powerful beings in that story. He shows how someone without magic can overcome that power by determination alone. I have read them several times (except for the Silmarillion, which Is very tedious to read). Tolkein is the grandfather of modern Fantasy. But modern Fantasy is usually very different from what he put down on paper.
When I was young Tolkien was still the father of Heroic Fantasy...what's the matter with kids today?
I still think you guys are all missing the boat here, but obviously no amount of argument is going to convince you at this point. [Insert name of famous HF writer here] could come onto this board and proclaim it by decree, but I don't think even that would change any minds if you're all this determined to be obtuse about it.
Speaking of writers, I tried to read a book by L.E. Modesitt once. He had these semi-interesting little excerpts from socio-political tracts at the headings of the chapters (or at least the first three chapters), but the actual narrative writing was an atrocity against SF...I mean bad writing, big red buttons and 'emkays' and 'allow me, the heroic captian, to explain to my obtuse crewmembers the very clever maneuver I've just completed' exposition...just really bad. Maybe it got better after the first couple of pages...which is all the text I actually read. But when the narrative is that hackneyed after so short a space, I just throw it aside. I can read my own stuff, after all.
If the snippets heading up the chapters had been more than mildly intersting I might have read all of them, but there is no way I was going to wade through the whole text of that stinker. Besides, I didn't have to read the whole thing. My mom, who is completely blind to really bad prose, read it and summarized it for me. Apparently the point of the book is that genocide is okay if the people you're wiping out belong to a religion you don't like.
Hardly the world's most original idea, but then, even if it were, I still wouldn't plow through all that farcical writing to get it.
So was his fantasy writing really good? I would find that hard to believe, but I'm open to persuasive arguments.
posted
Survivor, I'm getting rather tired of being told that I'm being obtuse. Please find some other way of insulting my intelligence.
quote:Saying that you're casting a spell is essentially synonymous with saying you're using magic.
So, according to you, a character in a fantasy who understands what he is doing when he makes lightning come out of his fingers to fry his enemy cannot realistically think of what he is doing as magic or casting a spell. He cannot call it wizardry, sorcery, witchcraft, enchantment, necromancy, voodoo, conjury, or any other synonym of magic, nor can he say he is using a charm, conjuraction, or any other synonym for spell. Only people who were ignorant of what he does would use such words to describe it.
Similarly, he would not think of himself as a magician, mage, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, enchanter, or any other synonym for magician. Ignorant people might call him such, but since he understands what he is doing, he knows he is not.
Now that you have decreed that the vast majority of fantasy fiction uses such terms incorrectly, perhaps you will enlighten us by explaining what he would call himself, what he would call the power he uses, and how he would refer to the means by which he uses that power.
Now, perhaps you will say that it is allowable for him to use magical terms if the knowledge of what he does is arcane. But that answer is not satisfactory: if he used those terms to explain what he does in a bestselling book, the knowledge would no longer be arcane, and therefore the terms would no longer apply.
Perhaps you will say that the author should make up terms: He is a glorper who uses glorpular power to cast rinsits. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time has used this strategy, so it obviously can be successful.
But is making up words to replace words that have traditionally been used in fantasy fiction the only satisfactory solution, in your view?
posted
Yes, the "obtuse" attack was getting a bit banal. And as no one here can dispute, EJS is a perfectly intelligent individual. I would wager that anyone here, by comparison to the real definition of "obtuse," is well-educated and intelligent.
So, while not everyone is you Survivor, I think it would be safe to dispense with the demeaning insults and stick strictly to debating issues. Keep your degrading instincts focused on points, not people.
Thanks, mate
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited February 26, 2004).]
posted
Has anyone noticed that Survivor is picking small holes in people's arguments and avoids all their main points? The word context has been used by several people, and is still relevant. Perhaps he cannot see past his own cultural background...
And do not confuse the word most with all. I, of course, did not say that "all texts about elves showed them as being magical.." I have read Tolkien, as well as many other books. So please do not use insults unless you are about to show evidence to back them up. Just because someone does not agree with you is no reason to attack their intelligence, or we will be back to the "I am right!" "No, I am right!" level of discussion.
Anyway, back to the main point, there is an obvious price to magic that is the same as the one paid for technology, and that is who controls the power? While most kids envy the powers of Harry Potter, they would not want some maniac trying to kill them. While Gandalf sounded grand, with sword or staff in hand, fighting Balrogs and such is no enviable task.
Power attracts power, and so any concentration of magic becomes a focal point attracting other "users" of magic. This, I believe, is the main premise of some of the Recluse books, as well some other fictional fantasy books.
I have to say this thread is becoming addictive. Thanks Survivor
Look, what I'm saying is very simple. I know that I've said it a bunch of times, but here it is again.
The defining characteristic of magic is that it is arcane.
quote:So, according to you, a character in a fantasy who understands what he is doing when he makes lightning come out of his fingers to fry his enemy cannot realistically think of what he is doing as magic or casting a spell. He cannot call it wizardry, sorcery, witchcraft, enchantment, necromancy, voodoo, conjury, or any other synonym of magic, nor can he say he is using a charm, conjuraction, or any other synonym for spell. Only people who were ignorant of what he does would use such words to describe it.
This is exactly the kind of comment I find unnecessarily obtuse (and the only reason I would accuse Eric of being deliberately obtuse is because he has not admitted understanding the main point of my argument). Have I ever said anything that could remotely be construed this way? This is called a straw man, Eric, and it is beneath you and the standards of discourse on this forum.
Characters who know how magic is done still call it magic, but they do so with the knowledge that the thing that makes their magic magic is that only a select minority have access to knowledge of how it works.
quote:Now, perhaps you will say that it is allowable for him to use magical terms if the knowledge of what he does is arcane. But that answer is not satisfactory: if he used those terms to explain what he does in a bestselling book, the knowledge would no longer be arcane, and therefore the terms would no longer apply.
This implies an error so embarrassing I'm ashamed to be forced to point it out. But I will answer the question. Yes, if your character publishes a best-selling book in his own world, and thus propagated accurate knowledge of the methods used by magicians to everyone in that world, then it would no longer be effectively magic in that world. Just think on our own magic for a moment. When some renegade magician shows how the tricks are all done, all the other magicians have to redesign their tricks so that they can't be done the old way...otherwise the tricks will no longer be magic because the whole audiance will know how they're done.
They can still be effective illusions, but they are no longer magic.
quote:Has anyone noticed that Survivor is picking small holes in people's arguments and avoids all their main points? The word context has been used by several people, and is still relevant. Perhaps he cannot see past his own cultural background...
Has anyone noticed that this is an accurate description of what everyone else is doing with my argument? I'm telling you that one necessary consequence of keeping something 'magical' is that most people don't know how it's done. You all keep avoiding addressing or acknowledging that point in your replies.
If I've missed anyone's 'main point' then please feel free to point out the main point I've missed, and I'll either agree with it or point out that it is mistaken (and demonstrate why). But the claim that you all have main points that I haven't addressed is more than a little suspicious, under the circumstances.
posted
Man you guys are soft. First you chew Survivor out, then you tell him "Thanks". You must learn not to reward bad behavior! Something my parents were not very good at. I got away with alot of stuff as a kid because of that. You could try what my older brother did to me, ignore him and maybe he will go away. Or just say: "Mom, Survivor isn't playing fair, and he keeps lookin' at me!" (that's just silly)
Ok enough joshin' around.
Some of us have posted some referrences of books that we felt showed a good use of magic and balance. What exactly was it in those novels that made it ring true for you? Go into as much detail as you can without spoiling the story for anyone who hasn't read it yet. Sound OK?
posted
Ok one of my main points so that you are clear. The use of words is down to cultural background. Therefore a culture with magic as part of their world will use words in a different context ot us. Which means, if they want to use the word magic to describe what they do, they can... because for them the use of that word could be just as valid as our use of the word technology or science.
I did rationalise this with background as to how our use of the word magic today differs from that of the Greeks, or even the Persians (it is quite likely that magike comes from magi, which was a Persian priest type person)
posted
Ok, well back to the discussion. The Recluse series is based on the premise that nature is balanced, i.e. a increase in the amount of available chaos magic leads to an increase in the amount of available order magic. The reason for this was that in nature chaos and order twin together to balance the effects. So in freeing up one form for use an equal amount of the other is freed.
I have read other books involving balanced magic, but I am not sure if I can explain how they operate with out too many spoilers.
posted
OK, Survivor, if you cannot understand the difference between the following two scenarios, there is no point in your saying anything about the use of magic of fantasy fiction.
1. In the context of real life, when a magician uses magic to turn a bunch of flowers into a bird, he is not really turning flowers into a bird. It is an illusion. It is a trick. It is false. It does not really happen.
2. In the context of fantasy fiction, when a magician uses magic to turn a bunch of flowers into a bird, he is really turning flowers into a bird. It is not an illusion. It is not a trick. It is true. It really happens.
Can you tell the difference?
I am asking this seriously, because the difference seems completely obvious and important to me. But the way you keep bringing up the fact that magicians in real life are tricking the audience as being of some relevance to the use of magic in fantasy, it sounds to me like you do not see the difference.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited February 27, 2004).]
posted
I've got to ask, seriously, what people think of the guy as a writer, because I though he might be the author of Eye of Argon from all his work I actually read (which wasn't very much...it's just cruel to keep reading after a certain point).
Eric, I'm not saying that stage magic and "real" magic as found in fantasy aren't different, I'm saying that in a certain fundamental sense, they are the same, and that similarity is why we call them both 'magic'.
Let me give an example that might be more helpful. In most traditional societies, the magic users are also the health care providers, hence the sometimes pejorative term 'witch doctor' to describe a shaman (or the more neutral 'medicine man'). In most effective cases, the traditional shaman would use a herbal extract or some similar form of medical treatment that is available today from the modern pharmacy.
Now when we take pills from the pharmacy to cure some ailment, there is much that is the same. The active ingredient of the pill will be the same as the active ingredient of the shaman's preparation, there will be a significant placebo effect in both cases--assuming that the underlying ailment being treated is the same, and that the strength of both medicines is similar, the effectiveness is about the same.
So why is one 'magic' and the other not?
See, my point is that the case of the stage magician and the 'real' magician of fantasy (or the real magician of a primitive tribe) are different in many more ways than they are the same, but we call them all magicians (or whatever...the point being we call what they do magic). Whereas the super-geneticist or doctor that actually heals us or tranmutes one living thing into another is doing something quite similar in many ways to what the magician of popular fantasy or the medicine man does...yet we call them quite different things.
I'm pointing out the single factor that we actually use to distinguish whether to call it magic or not.
And please don't brush this off with a "well, it's just a word" attitude. It isn't just a word, it's a fundamental concept. Whether we call it mysterious power or arcane knowledge or Mike Myers Mojo, it means the same thing (well, maybe not if we call it Mike Myers Mojo--I'm not quite sure what universal concept that would involve).
It's magic. It's the reason that we call the fictional powers of the HF wizard and the illusory powers of the stage magician and the real powers of the shaman all the same thing. Because in that particular, they are the same, and that's what makes them all magic, whether based on presditigi...whatever or mana or herbal mojo.
Anyway, I like for magic to have realistic consequences. Costs...eh, I can take 'em or leave 'em, but convincing magic affects the way people live. Having an inordinate cost for magic is just a handy way to limit the consequences...if everyone needs to chop off a significant body part to do a spell, then the number and power of spells that can be cast is limited to the number of appropriate limbs possessed by wizards. Kinda like a three wish limit...the protagonist has to decide whether it would be better to do things the conventional way or use up one of his wishes (fingers, eyeballs, whatever).
Like in Die Hard when Bruce Willis gets to the end and discovers he's got exacty two bullets for two bad guys.
But frankly I love it when a writer takes a ccompletely broken and unbalanced magic system and makes it work by having the consequences of the near unlimited magic use seem realistic. This is more like the real world we live in anyway, after all. We have a hell of a lot more power than we can use without destroying our world. And it profoundly affects the rules by which we play all our games, from international politics to deciding how to punish our kids for misbehavior.
I mentioned Hart's Hope before, which is a great book because it plays with the idea of a completely unbalanced magic system and what happens as a result. Notice that Queen Beauty, despite unlimited power, can't afford to exercise unlimited oppression except against selected individuals. Why? B'duh, she can't afford to really tick off anyone that could make a blood sacrifice sufficient to challenge her. When she accidentally does...she goes down.
Tolkien also has a completely unbalanced 'magic' system. In the books, he brings about with greater clarity the challenge that imposes on Good. Evil can use absolute power to crush opposition, but Good must foster and lead, acting as a guide which others can freely follow or reject. We see it in each good character, how they work to provide others with freedom to choose. And how is it that Good wins despite the fact that Evil can use power so freely? Because Evil cannot share that power, and the struggle over it is ultimately pyrrhic.
After all, if Bruce Willis had a hundred rounds left for the final confrontation, it still wouldn't be a good idea to go spraying machine gun fire into the room where his wife is being held hostage with a gun to her head.
And of course, you can't just stop at plot devices...the consequences of magic have to permeate your milieu for it to be convincing to the reader. If teleportation is easy and common, then why would there be roads? If telepathy, then why pigeons? If magic can make you mighty, then do nobles still keep swordmasters? What about childbirth? How important is primogeniture if it is typical for a mother to survive all her pregnancies? Different societies answer these questions in different ways...but they all have to answer the questions once magic brings them up.
posted
It has just suddenly struck me that everybody seems to be arguing over the same definition.
Those in opposition to Survivor appear to be arguing that a guy who throws fireballs at someone using some magical mana from the air is using magic and Survivor seems to be arguing that the same man would be employing a technological technique that he would call magic.
I could have got this completely wrong because I must admit I haven't been following this thread too closely (it required too much effort) but that's the way I see it. Now if I am right that means that you're both right because you would both call the same event magic, even though Survivor is more interested in the actual way it works, because, I assume, he cannot envisage that something can happen spontaneously for no reason whatsoever (and I'm not saying that things can or can't, I'm just trying to show the different ways it seems to me that people are looking at this subject).
Obviously, I've probably missed something somewhere but I'm sure none of you will be shy in telling me what it is.
posted
Eric, did you even read my last post which was specifically (well, among other things it did contain a specific reply) a reply to you?
Gwalchmai, you're probably as near the truth as anyone, but the difference is a little more key than you realize.
Eric (and others) were saying...look, I don't want to straw man the position, and since I really don't know what they're arguing now, I'll leave it to Eric or any other interested party to define their position.
I'm saying that the reason we call something magic is because the means of doing it is obscure, arcane, or otherwise a secret from the population at large, either intentionally or by accident.
I've done magic tricks myself (only on little kids, just for fun, I swear). When I'm doing a magic trick, I call it magic. But I only do so because I'm keeping the technique a secret (again, only from little kids, and only for fun). Keeping the audience in the dark is what makes it a magic trick.
For reasons that are unclear to myself, Eric cannot understand what I'm saying...perhaps a selective aphasia is at work here.
To restate and clarify:
Survivor's position is that if everyone knows how it works, you won't think of it as "magic."
I believe that to be a commonsense position that is in keeping with the traditional use of the word in the English language, including fantasy fiction written in English.
Yes, I read you last post. Didn't have time to respond to it properly, so I just responded to Gwalchmai.
quote:Survivor's position is that if everyone knows how it works, you won't think of it as "magic."
OK, now I finally see that I have been misunderstanding your position. I apologize for misstating it.
I still disagree with it, because your position is absurd in the context of fantasy fiction.
The point I have been trying to make is that in fantasy fiction, the word "magic" is not used the same way it is in the real world.
In the real world, what is called "magic" is actually the application of technologies borrowed from other disciplines (optics, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.) in order to trick the audience into believing that something is happening when it is actually something else that is happening. There is no "mana" (magical power) that is used.
In fantasy fiction, there is often the concept of a source of power that provides the energy needed for someone to do what is considered to be "magic" by the general public in the fantasy world. That power is not electricity or magnetism or anything borrowed from the sciences, it is something unique to the practice of the discipline called "magic."
So, if there is one person in all the world who knows how to wield this power, then both you and I are agreed that it could realistically be called "magic" by the general population.
(My misunderstanding of your position was that I for some reason thought you were saying that someone who understood the technology would no longer consider it to be magic. Or did I understand that correctly?)
So our magic-user takes two apprentices, and says to them, "I will instruct you in the art of magic. I will teach you how to access the magical power that flows around us, and through us, and through every object. With that power, you will be able to cast spells to move objects, make them burst into flame, transform into other objects, and so forth."
So he teaches them. Now there are three people in the world who know how to use magic. They refer to their art as "magic," the source of their power as "mana," and the method for projecting that power as "spells."
Now eventually, each of the two new mages takes two apprentices, and instruct them in the art of magic, teaching them how to use mana to cast spells, and thus become mages themselves.
And then those four new mages take two apprentices each, and instruct them in the art of magic, teaching them how to use mana to cast spells, and thus become mages themselves.
And the process repeats itself.
Soon there are thousands of mages, all of whom refer to their art as magic, and think of themselves as casting spells.
Eventually the majority of the population practice magic and cast spells.
Finally there is just one person left who is not a mage. Everyone else is a mage, practicing magic and casting spells.
Finally, the lone holdout gives in, and becomes an apprentice.
And the moment he learns how to cast his first spell, according to Suvivor's Law there is no longer any "magic" in the world. The power may still be there, but they have to come up with a new name for it. And they can't "cast spells" any more; they have to come up with a new name for that as well.
Now, the tipping point could have been when mages were a majority of the population instead of when everyone had learned to use magic, and it would still make no difference. It is ridiculous to assume that people who are using the technology and terminology of magic would replace that terminology just because too many people understand the technology.
Now, maybe I'm still misunderstanding you, Survivor. But if one person can understand the power and call it magic, and two people can do so, how many people can understand it before they can no longer call it magic? Is it an absolute number or a percentage of the population? What would force the society to change its traditional terminology once a that critical number was reached?
quote:Eric, I'm not saying that stage magic and "real" magic as found in fantasy aren't different, I'm saying that in a certain fundamental sense, they are the same, and that similarity is why we call them both 'magic'.
And I'm just saying that the similarity isn't what you think it is. Magic in fantasy fiction is the power that magic in the real world pretends to be. That's why real world magic must rely on tricking an audience. Fantasy world magic doesn't need to do that.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited February 27, 2004).]
quote:And I'm just saying that the similarity isn't what you think it is. Magic in fantasy fiction is the power that magic in the real world pretends to be. That's why real world magic must rely on tricking an audience. Fantasy world magic doesn't need to do that.
posted
Or to take an example from published fiction:
In James Barclay's Raven series, the four magical colleges treat magic very much in the same way we treat technology today. They are constantly researching different ways in which they can use the mana flow and even have specialist equipment to aid this research and test out their theories. Magic in his world is constantly evolving through the efforts of what we would call research scientists.
However, the people in his world, including the students and the faculties of these respective institutions, all think of what they are doing as being magic and they even term themselves as being mages. There is no sense of 'ha ha, stupid ordinary people think what we are doing is magic. Fools!' because they actually think of what they are doing as being magic even though they understand enormous amounts about the mana spectrum and how to use it.
[This message has been edited by Gwalchmai (edited February 28, 2004).]
I largely agree with what Survivor's saying, although not entirely.
It seems to me that if anyone really understands something to that depth, then it isn't really magic.
Now, that doesn't mean that you can't call it magic - I think if something like that were discovered and researched, it would be called magic... essentially our understanding of what magic is would change along with it.
But it would definitely be called magic, because people would look at what you could do with it, and see that it is exactly the same things that they thought magic was responsible for before, so the name would be inevitable.
Ack. Basically, what I'm saying is that using our vocabulary to argue about a world that is different to our own is difficult because the vocabulary is shaped by the needs of the world. And significant discoveries shift the meanings of words. Consider the word "quantum" and what it means now vs. what it originally meant ("a quantity or amount").
Printer-friendly view of this topic
It is all about the possiblities, and making them seem real to your reader. You and Christine just beat me to the punch, suspend disbelief, I was going to say that! I realized this morning that people would most likely take my statement "Literally" and was going to change it. You just got there before I did.
).
Or just say: "Mom, Survivor isn't playing fair, and he keeps lookin' at me!" (that's just silly) 
