"The time has come, the Walrus said

Michael S. Schiffer mss2 at attbi.com
Fri Jun 7 13:34:16 PDT 2002

At 03:09 PM 6/7/2002 -0500, Chris Bisanar wrote:
>From: "Steven Brust" <skzb at dreamcafe.com>
> >
> > >Steve, what did I miss, or are you snickering already at how wrong I've
> > >it all?  :)

> > Well, you left out wizardry.

Vlad says that wizardry is just high-end sorcery.  Of course, Vlad is an 
idiot. (As someone or other once said). After all, what does Vlad know 
about what wizards do, aside from failing to watch the space between their 
shoulder blades sufficiently carefully?

> > But while I have no actual disagreement with you, you ought to know that,
> > in my own head, I do not *want* these things precisely defined.  That
> > doesn't mean if I object if you do, it just means that I won't.


>I agree entirely... if you turn magic into some kind of pseudoscience with
>clear, described rules, it ceases to be magical.  Haha, midiclorians,
>anybody?  Sigh...

Though it can be done well: _Operation Chaos_, "Magic, Inc", the Lord Darcy 
stories, etc.

My impression, actually, had been that sorcery was amenable to that sort of 
systemization, but that witchcraft was not (or at least hadn't yet 
been).  The application of sorcery to things like genetics, the development 
of military sorcery, along with the general tone of discussion about 
sorcerous research, come across to me like nascent science, albeit science 
applied to forces that don't exist in our own world.

(Of course, if the author disagrees... well I'll just have to read on and 
see how things develop.  :-) )