Babel Clash

Batman IS NOT magic.  Batman IS fantasy, however.

Lee & I seem to be working with two very different definitions of magic.  In Lee’s definition, magic is synonymous with fantasy and the words can be used interchangeably.  This definition leads inexorably to the conclusion that Batman is magic because a) superheroes are magic and b) Batman is a superhero, therefore c) Batman is magic.  But, in my humble opinion, it is a sweeping generalisation to assume that all superheroes are magic.

In my definition, magic is a subset of fantasy.  To use the language of deductive reasoning, all magic is fantasy, but not all fantasy is magic.  I’m not disputing the fact that Batman is fantastic.  Batman is wicked fantastic.  Some of the stuff he can do is pretty darn unlikely.  But the fact remains that it is unlikely, not impossible.  Yes, it is very, very unlikely that one person could be the best at everything - detecting, disguising, super-sciencing, athleticism, you name it - but it is not impossible.  Yes, it would be bizarre for “real” people to run around dressed like bats, but it is not impossible.  Yes, it is unusual for real people to keep a Rogues’ Gallery, but Allan Pinkerton did and he was a real dude.  If it’s at all possible, no matter what the odds are against or how unlikely or remote, in my definition, it is fantasy not magic. 

Magic is the impossible.  It’s controlling wind (like Shannon Hale’s Goose Girl and Patrick Rothfuss’ Name of the Wind), it’s the ability to fly/levitate (like Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn), it’s shooting bolts of fire (like Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files).  It’s the stuff that us mere mortals constrained by the laws of physics just couldn’t possibly do.

In conclusion, I would like to offer this Venn diagram as irrefutable proof that Batman, while he is fantasy, is most decidedly not magic.

You’re absolutely right, Lee.  It’s not that I don’t like magic in my stories.  I just don’t like ill-defined magic.  I rebel against the use of magic as deus ex machina, but at the same time, I dislike book that provide a litany of rules and regulations regarding the uses of magic.  I want something that strikes a balance between magical free-for-all and plot-stopping thirty thousand commandments  governing the capabilities of and uses for magic in any particular world.  I don’t need to know that Superman can’t peel a cellophane S off his chest (because in my world he can’t.  Period.) unless it’s critical to the plot.  As a reader, I want to be able to assume that if you’re telling me magic can’t raise people from the dead, it’s because it has bearing on the plot somewhere down the line.  And if it doesn’t, I’m gonna be frustrated.

What I want is a book that convinces me that, while the author may not see the need to give out every detail & bit of minutiae about the rules governing magic, she or he knows what they are & is committed to playing by them.

There are two things I have to disagree with, though.  1) Batman is not magic.  I think Sheldon put it quite admirably.  The Green Lantern is magic.  Batman is a deep voice, a fortune that could rival Bill Gates’, and a crap ton of training.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the Dark Knight, but he’s not magic.  2) VCRs are totally obsolete.

As sort of an aside and since Lee brought up weird things going on with the magic of Superman . . . Does anyone out there watch Smallville?  Can someone explain to me what on earth wish-fulfilling kryptonite is?