The New Worlds part 6: What is magic?

After some discussion in the comment section of previous articles, I thought it would be useful to succinctly summarize and clarify what I think are the defining characteristics of magic. (In the context of fiction)

Magic in philosophy

Aristotle was the first major philosopher to conceptualize a non-magical world. He formulated the principle of non-contradiction, which has been summarized as “A is A.” A thing is what it is. What he actually said, however, is that “a thing cannot be and not be in the same place at the same time.” Thus, even though this has been interpreted as the principle of non-contradiction, he was actually talking about the relationship between objects in time and space.

Similarly, Aristotle formulated the notion that everything that exists is finite. There are no infinities. Together — infinity and contradiction — makes up the backbone of a magical worldview.

Magic in science

In the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the Philosophes of the time built on Aristotle to refine their concept of Natural Philosophy. Their translation of Aristotle into scientific terms is the locality principle: everything in nature is local, and has a locality. This among other things motivated Newton to think of gravity as a force that moves at some finite speed through space. In his original formulation he put this finite element into his formulas, but made the approximation that the speed of gravity was “practically infinite” (i.e. not measurable). Turns out later that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, which indeed is very fast.

However, Newton was met with much resistance from his peers initially because they regarded his concept of gravity (action at a distance) as magic. He (correctly) solved this by pointing out that he made no assumption of an instantaneous force (which would fit their definition of magic as a violation of the locality principle).

Later, this definition of magic became seriously disturbed and muddled with the advent of quantum mechanics. Einstein famously rejected quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance” with which he meant magic. The random nature of quantum mechanics was also in his opinion a violation of causality and hence magic: “God does not play dice.”

In one interpretation of QM, the laws of nature allow for non-locality, which would mean that the old definition of magic would have to be revised. I belong to the school of thought that believes it is perfectly possible to solve entanglement using locality. In fact, I would argue that entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) is empirical evidence for higher dimensions.

But even if what wins out in the end is non-locality, instantaneous travel is still not possible. Entanglement is not magic in the sense that it is severely limited. It does not allow for faster than light communication.

Magic in fiction

This brings us to fiction. The definition of magic in fiction is related to but slightly different from the definition in science and philosophy. Generally speaking, magic in fiction is defined as something that comes for free or completely unmotivated by the story, or, equivalently, something that is without limitations or cost.

Now, notice that fiction magic can occur in a completely naturalistic world, and similarly, a fantasy story (which involves magic, sorcery, witchcraft and wizardry) may actually be free of magic. In the fantasy genre, typically magic does not come for free and it has severe limitations. It requires much training, rare substances, great sacrifice (e.g. blood magic), wizards get tired, magic requires concentration, magic can be counteracted, some people/beings are immune etc.

For a good example of fantasy fiction that is free of literary magic, consider The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. A very good read.

Now, what is literary magic in a materialistic world? Here are some examples:

Deus ex Machina, an ending/solution that comes completely unmotivated by the logic of the story, e.g. by luck and without effort.

Mary Sue — a (female) character that can do anything. Doesn’t have to work or train. Rey in Star Wars.

Canon violation — to violate events or character traits established in previous episodes (canon). This type of magic goes right back to Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. A is A. It doesn’t matter what type of story you write. If you violate the rules of your own universe, you destroy your narrative.

There are many more examples that don’t have specific names necessarily, but many of them come under the rubric of “lazy writing.” What lazy writing encapsulates is not just easy writer solutions (quick fixes), but they often manifest themselves similarly in the story in the form of magic.

Science fiction

I think that by far the most important part of the story is the narrative and it is far more important to have good writing where the story itself flows without literary magic.

Now, the ultimate goal of a good science is to both have a magic free story line, AND a magic-free technology/physics.

We do, however, have greater creative license in a fictional world than in the real world. Thus, allowing for new tech or new scientific discoveries without actually having to do them in the real world is ok, provided they respect certain principles:

1) plausibility

In sci-fi, emphasis should be put on making sure that you are in alignment with the laws of physics. In some cases you can allow yourself license beyond that as long as it becomes a hidden premise that is unquestioned by the audience. One example of this is time travel. This is physically impossible (to the best of our knowledge), doesn’t make much sense and there is very little hope of doing this at any point in the future. Nevertheless, Back to the Future and Terminator were good movies.

The closer to current technology and physical understanding a storyverse is built on, the more plausible it is.

2) limitations

The red thread that runs through all forms of magic discussed is limitations. If something comes for free or without effort or is infinite, it’s magic. This doesn’t only destroy the credibility of the story, but fundamentally obliterates the story itself.

Consider a computer game in cheat mode. Who thinks that is fun? No-one. The whole point of a computer game is to create a hero’s journey: struggle, conflict, pain setbacks, limitations. 

That same logic is woven into any narrative. Magic (in the sense of no limits) completely destroys the hero’s journey. That’s why Mary Sue is so boring. She can do anything.

Depending on what audience you are writing for, you can get away with more. The time travel in Back to the Future and Terminator can be “sold” as plausible to the lay person, but not to the physicist.

The “perfect” sci-fi story is one in which even a physicist could read it and find the technology and the science credible. However, it is not necessary. It only has to be good enough so that an informed lay person finds it convincing. That still requires much effort, but can be done.

Based on all of this I argue that a plausible case can be made for non-magic FTL. That is, it is possible to give a technical description in detail of how it works in a way that sounds real and credible to most readers/viewers. At the same time, building limitations into it suitable for the story you want to tell removes the fiction magic as well.