Magic vs. Science

[LisaAnn]

Just a quick question to see which you guys prefer. :)

Do you like reading urban fantasies that explain the fantasy portions of their stories with a magical explanation, or do you prefer urban fantasies with scientific explanations? (i.e., A zombie becomes a zombie because of an ancient curse, or a zombie becomes a zombie due to a parasitic or bacterial infection from another zombie's bite?)

I've been reading a few urban fantasies with both, and I'd be interested to hear which you like better.

[ChaosTitan]

I don't actually have a preference, although I believe the majority of the UF I've read use magic/flat out fantasy as the basis for their supernatural and paranormal elements, rather than science.

[Tasmin21]

Personally, I'm a self-proclaimed world-building whore. If you can sell it to me, I love it. So either way works.

The one thing I really want, though, is consistency. If you wanna go a scientific route, own it. Don't suddenly devolve into "Oh, it's magic" 'cause you can't think up the science behind it.

[DeleyanLee]

The one thing I really want, though, is consistency. If you wanna go a scientific route, own it. Don't suddenly devolve into "Oh, it's magic" 'cause you can't think up the science behind it.

This. Though, honestly, I don't care about having an explanation for something like a zombie or such. I mean, I'm reading a Fantasy. I'm looking for things that aren't real and I'm willing to accept that they're in an urban setting 'cause of what I'm reading.

The only time I hate it is when the explanation gets more attention than the characters or the story. Just pick something--even if it's not offering one--and make it work.

[jmarkbyrnes]

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs over the wording, but I actually don't like the magic being "explained" at all. I prefer "description" about what the magic is like for the magic user and then the displayed result that everyone else can see. I don't want boring explanations that just detract from the story. I also want consistency.

-J. Mark Byrnes

[amrose]

I prefer magic but don't mind science.

[cameron_chapman]

For me, it comes down to believability. If you want a scientific explanation for the way something paranormal or supernatural works in your world, then it better be a good explanation that I have a hard time poking holes in. If it doesn't make sense, that can ruin the story for me.

Because of that, I usually prefer straight "magic" that doesn't need an explanation. I'll accept magic as magic. I won't always accept science as magic, unless it's very logical, rational, and well-thought-out.

[Paul Anthony Shortt]

I can accept either, but I like my magic and supernatural to be a little beyond the ability of science to explain. That said, the main thing for me is that the "how this works" should never overshadow the "what's being done with it." The mechnics of magic are all background and setting material, which should never take precedence over characters and plot.

[authorinprogress]

I agree with Paul--if there is too much explaining it takes away from the story--I tend to prefer straight magic myself as too much technical detail drives me crazy.

http://niksblog-authorinprogress.blogspot.com

author of: "Wolf Moon" (otherworld fantasy currently being edited)
"Valley of the Moon" (sequel to Wolf Moon and currently being written)

[authorinprogress]

I agree with Paul--if there is too much explaining it takes away from the story--I tend to prefer straight magic myself as too much technical detail drives me crazy.

http://niksblog-authorinprogress.blogspot.com

author of: "Wolf Moon" (otherworld fantasy currently being edited)
"Valley of the Moon" (sequel to Wolf Moon and currently being written)

"Writing is an accepted form of schizophrenia."
E.L. Doctorow

[Jess Haines]

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs over the wording, but I actually don't like the magic being "explained" at all. I prefer "description" about what the magic is like for the magic user and then the displayed result that everyone else can see. I don't want boring explanations that just detract from the story. I also want consistency.

-J. Mark Byrnes

This.

[DustySun]

For me, the believability of magic isn't the issue. Fantasy is called fantasy for a reason, whether urban or science. I think its more of the magic fits into the world. Huge explanations of how everything works belongs in a manual, not a novel. That, and with huge explanation comes with huge holes and contradictions.

As long as everything is constant and believable (within whatever world it may be), I think either types of explanations could work for magic.

[Sarpedon]

good magic is preferable to bad science.

[feather]

good magic is preferable to bad science.

Couldn't agree more. My greatest problem with the science solution is that I tend to end up shouting "viruses don't work like that!" to the book whenever they use them to explain vampires or zombies. It ruins believability in the world, so for me it's magic all the way.

[Jonathan.Bentz]

The science idea is very good if you're writing a script, because most of the time you're not required to have someone go into detail about the varying degrees of how the virus is contracted, how it was made, etc. Just a few lines of dialogue, often stated in between fights.
For novelizations, I feel the magical side is the safer bet. I'm sure there are some science fiction writers out there who actually could create a believable 'viral incursion' that causes the effects of a 'zombie', but magic at least is accompanied by the suspension of disbelief required for a novel.
Another thing I've found is that you can have either 'spells' in terms of magic, or you can have 'abilities' in terms of evolution. (Ex: X-Men). I prefer the second, though with a more refined limit to what the abilities can be. (Flight, telekinesis, pyrokinesis (is that spelled right), and others.
Spells are something that I find is more useful on the visual medium, while in the novel format you can have the character concentrate on what they're attempting to do; in essence, show the process of using, say, TK in a form of attack.

[Muddymack76]

I like magic simply because it's hard to "make up" believable science. The magic of magic is that it's magic.. Err, something like that. Science needs to have some basis in reality otherwise the nerds will shoot it down faster than the flux capacitor falls out of the Enterprise after it gets attacked by Cylons.:evil

[PeteMC]

good magic is preferable to bad science.

Oh yes. Not only that, if everything is explained by science then surely you're reading science fiction, not (urban or otherwise) fantasy.

I don't even like having magic explained to me in too much detail to be honest - if I know to the nth degree how it works, it no longer feels like magic IMO.

[missouridalton]

Both. I like writing science backed fantasy, but I don't really read a whole lot of it. Probably because every time I think I've gotten my hands on science fantasy it turns out to be something else.

Like the time I read Deficiency, not at all what I was expecting, let me tell you.

[GregS]

Either, assuming they're both thought out well.

In the case of science, it should be plausible and interesting. In the case of Magic, consistent and engaging.

I tend not to like stories that simply say, "oooh, magicky!" with little base.

[K.L. Townsend]

I like a mix of the two. In fact, one of my favorite ideas is that of a supernatural virus or disease. Whenever I read books or watch tv with that kind of mix included, I'm happy.

[Satchan]

Either way, as long as the author is consistent.

[Kriven]

Either one works provided you don't over explain it. When the focus becomes about how something works rather than why you need it to work, you end up with all sorts of convoluted and hoakie sounding things.

[Zoombie]

I actually had an idea recently.

So, okay: Magic is real. There are these artifacts that have existed since the dawn of time, bracelets that bond with their wielders and allow them to enact miracles if they did the right actions and offered the right sacrifices and so on. But then comes the 18th century, and the empiricists got their hands on one and found...

It's not magic. It's highly advanced technology. Now a cabal of these "techno-mages" start guiding humanity down a certain technological path. They let the normal people use things like internal combustion engines and computers and so on, but the underpinnings of those technologies are all filled with "magic" (Clarke's Law and all) and if you have one of these ancient bracelets, you can tap into the magic that secretly suffuses our technology.

And these mages have been using this power to guide, shape, and change our destiny from secret.

They can shoot lasers out of incandescent bulbs, create golumns out of concrete and asphalt, and can make computer homonculie. The only things their spells CAN'T effect...would be nature and human bodies and old style tech (anything invented before the 18th century is progressively harder to manipulate).

The climax of the book can have techno-mages on enchanted motercycles hacking at eachother with katanas while shaping the highway pavement with their minds to try and make their opponent crash!