Thoyd Loki Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Well, as I said above, my system of magic made it almost another branch of science. That is, to me, bettter than it being a stand-in for science. Well, as i said above, how does magic fit into the purpose of a look at the objective nature of the real world? I am not sure what you are saying you have a patent on. Did you not read the quotes I provided? They make it very clear how that could be done. But, maybe you skimmed or it was over your head - the little jest at the end certainly hurdled over you. But, if you have already decided not to, I don't understand the reason for the whole thread. Are you trying to market to Objectivists - or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I changed my mind. Magic (in a more scientific way) is about the only way to explain the existence of dragons in that world bar the totally unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shading Inc. Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I tend to disagree with you, if only out of long familiarity with the genre. Heroes of any stripe are, to some extent, larger than life: even James Bond stretches the bounds of realism considerably. If you read The Romantic Manifesto, you'll notice that Ayn Rand says this is a good thing. The larger the hero, the broader the abstraction they represent, the more applicable they are to your life and the more likely it is that the work of art will have meaning. Fantasy (and super-hero comic books, etc.) is particularly well-suited to dealing with huge, world-shaking abstractions simply because it is completely blown out of proportion. I think this is the reason that romanticism has survived in fantasy art to the extent that it has. The presence of heroes in fantasy literature should be taken as a sign that the fantasy genre is incredibly resilient, especially at serving the actual functions of art, not that it is some kind of backwater. Still, theoretically speaking, James Bond could be, while practically everything in the fantasy genre could never be. What's the use of dreaming about the absolutely unreachable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 I changed my mind. Magic (in a more scientific way) is about the only way to explain the existence of dragons in that world bar the totally unrealistic. Magic in a scientific way, heh, amusing. I think a better way to word that is "magic in a more rational way". But yes I get your point about having to use magic (in a rational way) to explain dragons, given that as far as I can tell they are quite scientifically impossible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted January 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Magic in a scientific way, heh, amusing. I think a better way to word that is "magic in a more rational way". But yes I get your point about having to use magic (in a rational way) to explain dragons, given that as far as I can tell they are quite scientifically impossible I thought the scientific part made the rational aspect you suggest obvious. After all reason is necessary for science. I also came up with some interesting things for my magic. Oh, and if anyone wants to know anything about my dragons or anything else in my books, feel free to PM me and I will happily answer any question that doesn't give away the book's plot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 First I'd like to note that the distinction between Objectivist and student of Objectivism is one that Ayn Rand had created and wanted the vast majority of her admirers to adopt. That is, as far as I can tell, only a select few intellectual elites with whom Rand was personally acquainted should call themselves Objectivists. I don't believe level of understanding was the sole criteria, but also extent of agreement with principles. As one who does not agree with some fundamental views of Objectivism, I consider myself a student of Objectivism, and I dislike a work of art to the extent that it disconnects from the principles of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.