Ah yes, very good. I am in agreement then.

Nice discussion guys! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

It can. And it lends itself that way very easily I think.

I call this the problem of power.

See, it feels so cool to give our characters special gifts. It's neat to work with elves who have telepathy, and humans who are specially good with animals, and [fill in the blank].

But, it's not real.

And yet, we as readers desire it. Have I not felt it? Wouldn't it be so good if I could use a Jedi mind trick in the style of Obi-wan to make people want to make my scripts into movies? Wouldn't it be cool to wave my hand and make my vegetables turn into my favorite foods?

But it's not real. And there's the danger. When people start wanting that power so badly -even to do good things - that they will do anything to get it...then they're in trouble.

On the other hand, a book without power causes its own set of problems...

So power is not bad in and of itself, in books.

It's how you portray that power. Is it all-important? Is it elitist? Is it a cure-all? Then by all means do a heavy revision and fix it.

(**note** this is one of my problems with the Force. It's elistist - randomly bestowed on children who are then given to the Jedi to be raised into their religion - and seems to be infallibly powerful, giving that power completely into the hands of Jedi who can learn to 'control' it..........ehhh, that breaks several of the rules of safe and useful power portrayal right there!)

Linguistics relating to power are important too. You don't have to slap the label of magic on everything. It makes some of us nervous.

Some good portrayals of power are in LotR. Particularly, the One Ring. To the characters, it has a lot of power in it. However, because of its maker, Sauron, it is also very dangerous. BUT 'I deem it best for mortals not to touch any Rings' (paraphrased). It's not just the One Ring that's bad. It's any power that is not originally meant for humans (men, hobbits, etc) that is dangerous. Even when taken in a way to help others.

Anyway...there are my ramblings.

(for the record, while I might eventually deal with the supernatural, miracles, and inherent gift/etc power...I will never use the word magic. Too many connotations!)

I, at least, solved the "problem of power", as you so richly put it, in this manner.

First, I wanted to make the workings of the "cobha" (look for it on this forum, it's a great concept) distinctly different from witchcraft, and to resemble the way power operates in this world. So, my "power" works like an extension of the body-like a telescope or pair of binoculars-and is exercised like a muscle, it has limits, a purpose, it can be trained, developed, and injured.

But there is still the problem of the source, and possession of the power.

The source was simple: A set of objects which were imbued with power by God. Not a foreign concept when you think about it: Adam's body was filled with a spiritual power from God that we probably cannot understand.

When a person touches these objects, they become permanently attached to the "wearer", until this person dies or is separated by extreme circumstances. When the person dies, the next person to touch the object becomes the new "wearer".

This defeats the two main problems with power in general: It's simply a gift you can use or abuse, and you don't come to possess it by mystical happenings or random selection (although Providence certainly plays the major role), but instead by circumstance: Not unlike many talents and gifts today.

A sprinter isn't always born to sprint: Sometimes their circumstances cause them to tend that direction. So rather than being some mystical force, it all goes back to God's Providence.

That's the way I feel it should be.

Those last two posts were amazingly done, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.

A quick note: 'having magic in your stories,' by itself, does no more to encourage the use of magic than having murder in a mystery story encourages us to murder. If it is a good thing in your story (I am using the black magic definition of magic here), then you might have problems. But if you have magic and it is evil, then that is really really good: if anything it will dissuade people from using magic. See?

I think many would agree, however, to an unbelieving eye the distribution of talents and gifts that God gives individuals seems very random. For instance, there are many cases where talents run in a family, but other times when a no one in a family shares common talents. God gives them however He chooses. Some talents can be learned as skills. A lot of people can learn to sing and dance better even if they never progress quite as far or as easily as someone with the talent for it. On the other hand, some people seem unable to get any better at these talents no matter how long and hard they work on it. In my worlds, the ability to use "magic" (which isn't really magic at all in those worlds), like any talent, is given by God as he chooses, in what can sometimes seem to be a random manner, some have a lot of talent, some have enough that with a lot of work they can learn to use it, and some have absolutely no ability at all to use it. This is the general overarching approach I use in most of my worlds.

In Christ,
Jordan

That is a good point, however, I should clarify, skills and talents operate differently in my mind.

A skill is something one can learn, master, or loose. A talent in generally and inherent part of your being.

Being mathematically inclined could be called a talent. Being good at math is a skill.

So, the power in my world is like both of those. You have to learn it, so it's a skill, but same may have a natural inclination to this skill, in which case they would be talented.

I generally don't like apparently random distribution of power. It always seems rather convenient which characters do and don't have the ability to use such power.

Thank you for the compliment.

I have the same distinction in my mind In fact, I find it cool that most talents are linked to skills (i.e. somebody may be a gifted musician, but they have to learn the skill of playing an instrument).
I like it. My worlds work much the same way.
Again, one could argue that talents seem to be randomly distributed But I understand what you're talking about and I agree that there are way too many instances in fantasy where the distribution of power seems uncannily convenient.

In Christ,
Jordan

IMO, it's hard to say 'okay, these characters have been given this gift from God to do this' if you have characters who have no gifts (or are not proven to be useful in their own way, like hobbits!)

That's why I don't like doing non-human MCs because it's simply not relatable for the reader (and especially viewers of film if the difference is visual!). That's why hobbits make much better MCs than elves. We understand what being a hobbit is like.

As to cobha vs. elitism & talents vs. skills:

Very fine line! I think it works best if the power is shown to be distributed evenly between all races and all peoples. But as long as whatever 'religion' you have is distributed evenly, I think it's fine.......... (I mean, who you are and what you can do should not affect your place in the 'religion' of your world.) ('religion' is in quotes because I couldn't think of anything else to call it... )

Also, emphasizing that everyone has talents of their own would help.

Yes, if magic is evil in a story, then there is no desire to engage in it.

Insedar, I don't know what emotion has to do with the problem. If anything, injecting emotion into a scene in which the characters use magic to solve their problems (or attempt to) makes the use of magic worse because it tells the reader that 'it's okay to try to escape your problems through power' when power is not the answer to the world's problems.

Though I have no earthly clue what you're talking about re: Gandalf and Saruman. That is not in the book.

Could you explain what you're talking about here? Me confused.
I'll let Inesdar explain himself. But the Eragon reference he uses is actually one of many occasions where magic fails the MC, which does indeed amplify the emotion of the moment.

In Christ,
Jordan

Hobbits have lots of gifts! Just listen to Gandalf go on and on about them. Frodo would not have made it if he wasn't a hobbit.



You mean the fact that they are angels? Or what...

Okay, 'religion' is in quotes because a lot of people object to calling Christianity a religion - "religion is man's attempts to reach God, Christianity is God's way to reach man", etc, etc.

What I mean by distributed evenly...

Good example: In real life, saving faith in Christ is something that anyone can have. (unless you're a Calvinist, in which case it's only for the elect...but I have a problem with that anyway)

Very Bad Example: In the Star Wars films, the Jedi religion is only for those "random" (or possibly genetically linked because it seems to run in families) people who happen to be Force-sensitive. Other people can believe in the Force, all right (Han Solo) but they aren't part of the religion. It doesn't do them any good. (it, of course, helps the MC, because after Han Solo believes the Force is real, he's more willing to help Luke, but that just compounds the problem.)


That is a good point, that more emotion can be gotten when even extra power fails - I didn't realize that that example was one in which it actually failed.

Yeah, but not the type ya'll are talking about here. They're very human-like.

I knew about the angelic nature of the Maiar. Insedar was talking about 'drawing Saruman out of Theoden'..............that didn't happen in the book.

Ah yes, you are right there.

Just curious, (I don't really want to start a debate or anything) what is your problem with it?



Gandalf did change Theoden's mind back because Saruman had twisted it through Wormtongue, even if he didn't actually draw Saruman out.

My problem with Calvinism in short:

If 'the elect' means 'random people who may or may not actually have even heard of the Truth' then it's a problem. It's also a problem if it means that there are people who believe in Christ as Savior and follow Him - and then they aren't one of the predetermined 'elect' so they are left out.

On the other hand, haven't researched sufficiently. I also know that there are a large number of varieties of Calvinists.

(I personally believe that it's a combination of the elect and personal choice--the 'elect' in the Bible is a term that simply refers to the fact that God knows who is going to choose Christ before they do. )

And re: Gandalf, Saruman, and Theoden:

In the book, Gandalf merely removed Wormtongue (by apparently scaring him or temporarily striking him down, either way by a show of power - it was vague) and allowed Theoden to choose. There was nothing else - it was Theoden's personal moral courage that refused the trickery of Saruman's spy Wormtongue.

Melody: You are correct about the way Gandalf 'took care' of Theoden. That was actually built into his limits (to a degree) as a wizard.

It is best, however, if you kept discussions about Calvinism and other off-topic topics to private messages, or to the general discussion room (not Calvinism though, keep that one out of the forum haha). Thanks!

Oh, yeah, because Gandalf wasn't allowed to use physical force or his inherent power to force people to do anything - it had to be that person's choice to help fight against Sauron.

Ah, okay. I think I ought to be done with the topic anyway--I don't think I really know as much as I thought I knew. And I shall refrain from making random comments like the one that started the topic.

::attempts to remember her previous discourse::

I was going to continue here, but sounds like I have to get off the computer.

I will note, though, that I read 4 pages of Eragon and didn't like it. So I don't know exactly what you mean, Lady [elvish name I can't spell].

Well, that's what I am saying. And Eragon's magic has quite a history, you've got to look into the history he provides. If I remember correctly, most of the currently operating magic in that world was developed by a mystical race that has disappeared, so don't really understand how it operates. It should also be noted that Eragon's magic is bad form: magic powers are conveniently possessed by persons of such-and-such family, the dragons happen to choose such-and-such person to bond with, etc. It's really somewhat lazy. (No offense.)

Besides that, Eragon's magic constantly blurs lines between right and wrong, and tangles morality with a bunch of catch 22's. If a person cannot lie while speaking the old tongue, but a person can say something they don't mean, then couldn't a person change history by telling a new history in the old tongue? It's a huge problem with the magic plot-mechanic that needed major adjustment.

Inherent magic is a bit like the Force in Star Wars. It's a bit too convenient and far too mystical.

'Inherent' magic is cobha. What Lady Eruwaedhiel is talking about is cobha, not strictly magic at all (though you can call it that if you want to).

Pardon me, I should have been more clear.

Cobha can be used inappropriately. The most obvious example is the Force from Star Wars. (Although it is never referred to as magic.) What I mean is that sometimes, when not done properly, inherent magic takes on a mystical tone.

I would also suggest answering this question: What is the magic inherently a part of? Is it simply a part of the way a world operates? Is it an inherent personality trait in certain genetic lines? The answer can effect both the usefulness and the appropriateness of cobha.

But again, pardon my generalization. I will rephrase what I said previously: Inherent magic sometimes tends to be too mystical and too convenient.

Agreed. Those are very good questions to ask.

Also, is the cobha subservient to God? Was it designed by Him to bring glory to Him just like the ability to run fast or a talent to play music (both of which in our world look like they are handed out randomly)?

Sounds like the point I was trying to make earlier Great minds think alike....so how did WE pull it off?

Really, everything is under God, so God would have created and controlled it. Good point.
I don't think that the Force is meant to be really mystical. It is kinda the cobha of the Star Wars universe.

So therefore that fact ought to be pointed out in the book lest the reader think that God has nothing to do with it. Yes?



Um, yeah, it is. From my limited research, apparently Lucas intended it to be completely fictional, but in-universe it is meant to be both a superpower and a religion. (attempting to make their world work without God)

So at the same time it is both cobha (as a superpower) and religion (particularly when it starts to talk about Force ghosts and such...).

Yes.

If you read any of the extended universe Star Wars books, you see a lot more mysticism creeping into the whole Jedi-Force relationship. That's one of the reasons I've kinda gotten out of reading the books.

Including events (if I remember correctly) where characters "becoming one with the Force", meaning that rather than simply using the Force the actually allow the Force to enter and use them. It is also good to note that the good and evil within the Force must be balanced, which would indicate that evil is valuable in some way. So it's not bad, necessarily.

So, following Jay's question, we could say this is an example of cobha gone wrong. It's not always a good thing. (Although it certainly avoids many problems.)

I'm starting to suspect that the Cobha section of my series might be a two parter. Or three. Oh dear.

Other natural aspects of our world aren't necessarily good things even though God is their source. Some people sing beautifully about things that DO NOT honor God. Some people (Hitler, serial killers) use their extraordinary intelligence to devise EVIL plans. People have even found ways to use the very atoms that God built the world with as a means to cause horrible destruction. In a fallen world nothing "natural" is inherently innocent just because God is it's source. In Mythica people can use the "supernatural" abilities granted them by God for good or evil dependent upon the person, even though GOD was the one that gave them those abilities. That whole "free will" thing.

And as for "Cobha gone wrong," a non-believing secular author writing for secular audiences would feel no obligation to use Cobha correctly.

YAY!!! Won't that be fun for you to write

Well, to me there a difference between "magic" (something made up for your stories) and the witchcraft/sorcery/magic which is real and is in our world.

And people say that you shouldn't have it because the Bible says so, but it also says not to kill people, and I don't see people having a problem with that in a book. To me the "fantasy" there is not real, it's a story. That is how I see it anyway.
(though in the fantasy I'm writing there is no magic, but there is alchemy, and the alchemists use their power to fool people into thinking they're magicians.)



~Joe~