Poll: Does Science belong in a Fantasy Novel?

[RYjet911]

Science is unnecessary, but to help immerse the reader you need to be able to make your world seem believable, and the more random a power becomes or suchlike, the less believable the story becomes. Don't have creatures that are, for all intents and purposes, indestructable or at least incredibly hardy without some form of downside.

Without knowing details about your world and characters I am finding it difficult to provide any other possibly useful info, but hopefully this would be a start to answering your question.

 

[MetaMop]

There's only so much advice that can be given without detail, friend.
A combination of sci-fi and fantasy can work very well (Star Wars or Dark Tower) but it depends on how it's handled. A technological society with supernatural elements works best, in my opinion. Look at Metro 2033, it's logical yet spiritual until you get 200 pages in and the whole book goes bonkers. It serves as a good lesson in how not to approach a science/fantasy story.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I would say that the explanation itself is unnecessary as far as the narrative goes, unless of course the narrative deals heavily with the characters utilizing and/or learning these properties of magic. However, I think it is a very good idea for you the author to have a concept of the properties and mechanisms of your portrayal of magic. This will make it seem like something more than an all-purpose plot device.

You should probably write it down for yourself, and if it's interesting and comprehensive enough you may consider including it as an appendix to your novel.

 

[Anonemuss0]

science as a whole might not be applicable to all fantasy but scientific explanation of magic phenomena can only help. If there aren't rules in place you end up with exceedingly overpowered magic systems or magic like in Harry Potter where it only has extremely limited and situational uses. If you have the time I highly recommend the works of both Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfuss. Both authors use highly inventive systems of magic where the mechanics are carefully explained and demonstrated. If there aren't limits or restrictions explained simply pulling the excuse "its magic" out of you ass is annoying and leads to a lack of immersion as people question why the characters didn't do something a certain way. For the record I have read most of the sci-fi and fantasy sections at my local bookstores and magic is always better and more believable when its actually explained in a scientific way. Hope this helps

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

I would say that the explanation itself is unnecessary as far as the narrative goes, unless of course the narrative deals heavily with the characters utilizing and/or learning these properties of magic. However, I think it is a very good idea for you the author to have a concept of the properties and mechanisms of your portrayal of magic. This will make it seem like something more than an all-purpose plot device.

You should probably write it down for yourself, and if it's interesting and comprehensive enough you may consider including it as an appendix to your novel.

Ah, you mean creating a seperate book that is the 'Science of TEoD' or something like that? Sortuv like how Star Trek created the immersiveness of creating models and scientific theories. I could introduce my own theories in a seperate book, as to not drop everything on the readers lap like a brick.

Either way I understand what you say, to a degree.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Ah, you mean creating a seperate book that is the 'Science of TEoD' or something like that? Sortuv like how Star Trek created the immersiveness of creating models and scientific theories. I could introduce my own theories in a seperate book, as to not drop everything on the readers lap like a brick.

Either way I understand what you say, to a degree.

A separate book isn't exactly what I was suggesting. I was actually talking about more of an addition to the original book that isn't part of the narrative. That's what an appendix is, extra information that isn't part of the main body of text.

Of course, if you have sufficient information to justify an encyclopedia for your fictional universe then by all means write one.

Either way, you shouldn't make giant info-dumps in the narrative. At least explain it in small bits that fit in to the overall plot.

 

[Dascylus]

Perdido Street Station by China Mieville...

Read it, it's a good book and at the end of it you will have your answer.
The opinions of me and a hundred other internet strangers shouldn't matter. They are all just personal opinions take some recommendations and read for yourself...

That said, here's my personal opinion.

Yes, science belongs in fantasy... Or rather you should avoid the whole "It's just magic" thing.
The science doesn't have to be atoms and electrons but there should be method behind it.
Dragons are magical but they still bleed and shit don't they?

However, you don't need to write it all down or think it all through.
:He subtly waved his hand and an almost impercievable shimmer emanated from his lips.
"These are not the halflings you are looking for" he said.

:As the arrows flew towards him he bagan to whisper in arcane tongue, time seemed to slow around. He could at once percieve their speed and trajectory past, present and future. He reflexively arched backwards as the first two flew above his head, the second was lower and grazed his leg.

The science is there and the behaviour of the characters should remain consistent throughout but you don't need to write down what Eno was whispering or the intricacies of Ibo Woon's hand gesture.

 

[Ken Sapp]

Science belongs in the ways in which it makes the world consistent to its own rules.
Beyond that it is completely up to you.

 

[Talshere]

snip

There is no particular reason you couldnt have science in a world with magic. I however believe that trying to tie it to the "real world" as such is a mistake. Obviously this is very opinionated and you may have managed this well, however having such a world makes suspension of disbelief very hard. The similarities of such a world constantly draw you into something very familiar then keep punching you in the face when something jarringly "wrong" happens, because its so familiar you cant help but notice differences. I suspect this is why there are few examples of this style of book.


As to no weapons:

1: does everyone have magic? If no, you would still have weapons for none magic users. You can only stop a bullet if you know its coming. Fortunately bullets are very fast.

2:How strong are these people/Are they all uniform in strength? If your using modern tech, I assume they have sufficient tech for nuclear power. I mean, in most cases of magic in a vast library of books, very very few of them posses the capability of causing devastation on level with a nuke, even in group or with artefacts to enhance power. As such, a nuke would still be a powerful tool. Plus if they are not all the same strength, then you will have some who have negligible power in magic...See point 3.

3: Can you sense the use of magic? Back to this, gota know a bullet is coming to block it thing. This would make guns useful even for magic users.


Yes you can have magic in a sci-fi world. But you have to do it carefully, and think logically about what might or might not have come about if we could use magic, and the availability of said magic. For example, if we assume everyone has "some" magic ability, and that to teleport yourself and a few objects is so easy literally everyone can do it, then motorways(freeways) likely would not have been invented, whoever a rail system probably would have due to the VAST quantities of goods it allows you to move, unless you have a system whereby people are employed to constantly transport said good much like a labourer.