The thing about hard magic system is that they tend to grow necessarily irreligious because they are a form of technology.
Indeed, one can argue that we have a form of magic that works like technology. We call it technology. A woman who gives some a potion with willow-bark in it for headache, with poppy extract to sleep better, and (because she is unscrupulous), with arsenic for his uncle to hasten his inheritance and with rosehip extract to win the love of a heiress was a witch, but it happens we know that three of those would work, and the fourth not, by chemistry.
Ah. Ok. That’s fair. I do have a few thoughts though.
1) Traditionally what makes a magic system hard vs soft is its explainability and rules. And I can easily imagine a hard magic system that while functionally technology does require some amount of personal belief to power the tech. This is fictional. Authors can make up any rules they want. As long as the reader understands those rules and can apply those rules logically, it’s still hard magic.
2) A magic system can be based on religious practice in the real world and still work for atheists in the story world anyway. That doesn’t make it less religiously inspired. There are plenty of soft magic systems that don’t require any religious belief re specific theology. Personal theology of character can be completely separate from hard vs soft magic. My focus was more the inspiration of the system than how it is viewed in-world.
Agreed. The example that came to my mind - though it’s not a perfect example- is dresden files. I would consider it more middle ground between soft and hard. I do think it has some hard magic elements. And there is a factor in which magic works based on the personal magic users belief system. It’s been a while since I’ve read the series so I don’t remember some of the more particular details but I do remember that belief was important in the recipe for spells and ingredients - But that there was in fact a formula for how things were made.
The peril of the "personal belief system" is that it leads some authors into the silliness of having people's personal belief system affect metaphysics.
I once read a book in which a "Jew" clearly and overtly thought that God was created and sustained by the massive belief in the modern world. Makes an idol seem reasonable.
Just joining the conversation to state that there are plenty of authors- even significant theologians who have contributed greatly to our worldwide views of metaphysics- just the example you used. Who have “personal belief systems” that include religious beliefs and even belief in a diety. For example: René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Baruch Spinoza and other countless philosohers, Albert Einstein, not famously known as a philosopher but did contribute to philosophy, who had religious personal beliefs but were able to contribute greatly to the study and understanding of metaphysics. There is such a thing as dialeticisim.
That's not what you get in fantasy. What you get in fantasy is that if someone believes that animals have immortal souls, they can give them immortal souls.
Yes! Which is why I think magic system can apply to both fantasy and science fiction stories. Science Fiction just tends to be hard magic.
And - that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s less religious- it does mean it’s less supernatural. It’s worth questioning what you mean by irreligious. I know plenty of quite religious Jews- more observant than me- who don’t believe in the supernatural but are still religious for other reasons - and would even still claim to believe.
Religious is a bit of an overbroad word that can mean a lot of different things. That’s why I tried to define and separate it out from magic in this post.
I agree that harder magic is less magical and less obviously supernatural. I think there is still room to be religious or based on religious practice - but I acknowledge it depends on your definition.
Sorry for editing this after posting - I hit the post button prematurely by accident.
Very cool. I like your take on what might make a Jewish magic system. Another perspective of what could make a fantasy Jewish based on my understanding of what makes the Narnia books Christian, the allegory for Christ himself, would be allegory to Jewish central beliefs. I won't spoil the Narnia series, but it is pretty obvious which character I'm referring to if you've read or seen it. That ties in nicely with having a character that derives power from talking to god. My knowledge of Judaism is limited to what I learned of the Old Testament being raised Catholic, but that definitely tracks with my limited understanding. Have you read the SF novel Hyperion (four book series, but the first could be read standalone)? I don't think Dan Simmons is Jewish, but there are prominent Jewish characters as well as Christian ones and religious themes. I think at least one of the short stories that make up the book would interest you.
Good point! The reason I didn’t focus on suggesting an allegory for central beliefs is that there is some variety and disagreement over which beliefs are truly central. There is Maimonides list of 13 principles which many might consider the central understanding of what Jews believe - but there are also many Jews who object to that list for a variety of reasons. Unlike Catholics- who have the Pope and organized church system to keep everyone together with an official record of what people believe, Jews are more decentralized- and can be Jewish even without believing in the core principles. That is another layer as to why having a “Jewish Narnia” might be difficult. No matter what set of core beliefs that the author might pick for the allegory- there would be someone who would object as say “that doesn’t represent ALL of Judaism.” - and maybe that was true for Narnia too. I read it as a child - but didn’t really catch much of the nuance as I had not yet had much exposure to New Testament (and still haven’t even today). I would be curious to read a review of Narnia from a Christian perspective and hear whether they find that it truly reflects official Church teachings.
I enjoyed reading this! Are you familiar with the Merkabah Rider series? I think they are considered fantasy, and the main character is a Jewish man in the "Wild West" who inhabits more than one plane of existence. As far as I can tell, the author is not Jewish, which I find strange considering the deep level of research into Kabbalah and the Torah needed for the books.
The thing about hard magic system is that they tend to grow necessarily irreligious because they are a form of technology.
Indeed, one can argue that we have a form of magic that works like technology. We call it technology. A woman who gives some a potion with willow-bark in it for headache, with poppy extract to sleep better, and (because she is unscrupulous), with arsenic for his uncle to hasten his inheritance and with rosehip extract to win the love of a heiress was a witch, but it happens we know that three of those would work, and the fourth not, by chemistry.
Ah. Ok. That’s fair. I do have a few thoughts though.
1) Traditionally what makes a magic system hard vs soft is its explainability and rules. And I can easily imagine a hard magic system that while functionally technology does require some amount of personal belief to power the tech. This is fictional. Authors can make up any rules they want. As long as the reader understands those rules and can apply those rules logically, it’s still hard magic.
2) A magic system can be based on religious practice in the real world and still work for atheists in the story world anyway. That doesn’t make it less religiously inspired. There are plenty of soft magic systems that don’t require any religious belief re specific theology. Personal theology of character can be completely separate from hard vs soft magic. My focus was more the inspiration of the system than how it is viewed in-world.
It would be interesting to make it work. Though I suppose the Patronus in *Harry Potter* is an example.
Agreed. The example that came to my mind - though it’s not a perfect example- is dresden files. I would consider it more middle ground between soft and hard. I do think it has some hard magic elements. And there is a factor in which magic works based on the personal magic users belief system. It’s been a while since I’ve read the series so I don’t remember some of the more particular details but I do remember that belief was important in the recipe for spells and ingredients - But that there was in fact a formula for how things were made.
The peril of the "personal belief system" is that it leads some authors into the silliness of having people's personal belief system affect metaphysics.
I once read a book in which a "Jew" clearly and overtly thought that God was created and sustained by the massive belief in the modern world. Makes an idol seem reasonable.
I am curious what book you are referencing, I would like to check it out. Do you happen to remember the title?
*The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump* by Harry Turtledove
Just joining the conversation to state that there are plenty of authors- even significant theologians who have contributed greatly to our worldwide views of metaphysics- just the example you used. Who have “personal belief systems” that include religious beliefs and even belief in a diety. For example: René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Baruch Spinoza and other countless philosohers, Albert Einstein, not famously known as a philosopher but did contribute to philosophy, who had religious personal beliefs but were able to contribute greatly to the study and understanding of metaphysics. There is such a thing as dialeticisim.
That's not what you get in fantasy. What you get in fantasy is that if someone believes that animals have immortal souls, they can give them immortal souls.
I am not sure I know what you mean. I guess we will agree to disagree. Thank you for the interesting conversation!
Yes! Which is why I think magic system can apply to both fantasy and science fiction stories. Science Fiction just tends to be hard magic.
And - that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s less religious- it does mean it’s less supernatural. It’s worth questioning what you mean by irreligious. I know plenty of quite religious Jews- more observant than me- who don’t believe in the supernatural but are still religious for other reasons - and would even still claim to believe.
Religious is a bit of an overbroad word that can mean a lot of different things. That’s why I tried to define and separate it out from magic in this post.
I agree that harder magic is less magical and less obviously supernatural. I think there is still room to be religious or based on religious practice - but I acknowledge it depends on your definition.
Sorry for editing this after posting - I hit the post button prematurely by accident.
I mean that even a complete atheist could logically use most hard magic systems.
Very cool. I like your take on what might make a Jewish magic system. Another perspective of what could make a fantasy Jewish based on my understanding of what makes the Narnia books Christian, the allegory for Christ himself, would be allegory to Jewish central beliefs. I won't spoil the Narnia series, but it is pretty obvious which character I'm referring to if you've read or seen it. That ties in nicely with having a character that derives power from talking to god. My knowledge of Judaism is limited to what I learned of the Old Testament being raised Catholic, but that definitely tracks with my limited understanding. Have you read the SF novel Hyperion (four book series, but the first could be read standalone)? I don't think Dan Simmons is Jewish, but there are prominent Jewish characters as well as Christian ones and religious themes. I think at least one of the short stories that make up the book would interest you.
Good point! The reason I didn’t focus on suggesting an allegory for central beliefs is that there is some variety and disagreement over which beliefs are truly central. There is Maimonides list of 13 principles which many might consider the central understanding of what Jews believe - but there are also many Jews who object to that list for a variety of reasons. Unlike Catholics- who have the Pope and organized church system to keep everyone together with an official record of what people believe, Jews are more decentralized- and can be Jewish even without believing in the core principles. That is another layer as to why having a “Jewish Narnia” might be difficult. No matter what set of core beliefs that the author might pick for the allegory- there would be someone who would object as say “that doesn’t represent ALL of Judaism.” - and maybe that was true for Narnia too. I read it as a child - but didn’t really catch much of the nuance as I had not yet had much exposure to New Testament (and still haven’t even today). I would be curious to read a review of Narnia from a Christian perspective and hear whether they find that it truly reflects official Church teachings.
I enjoyed reading this! Are you familiar with the Merkabah Rider series? I think they are considered fantasy, and the main character is a Jewish man in the "Wild West" who inhabits more than one plane of existence. As far as I can tell, the author is not Jewish, which I find strange considering the deep level of research into Kabbalah and the Torah needed for the books.
I had not heard of this one before! I will definitely give it a look.