The purpose of this website is to establish a coherent theoretical basis for the different magics found in various science fiction and fantasy stories. For examples, see the Analysis page.

In doing so, I will utilize the scientific method. The scientific method is the single most successful method used in describing nature. It takes observations, infers from those observations, and finally ends up with a theoretical description, which in turn allows predictions to be made about the observed phenomena.

But there are several objections to this proposal: first, and most significant, is "what makes you think you can analyze magic?" This is also perhaps the easiest to answer. First, let's define magic. The Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, gives a rather long entry; the most salient definitions are as follows: "Magic applies to any supernatural power or art or to any natural power or art seeming to have miraculous results; it is often used in connection with effecting a result or influencing a tendency"; "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" (1358).

What do both definitions have in common? The invocation of the supernatural. Why, then, do I think a naturalistic method will be able at all to describe supernatural phenomena? For several reasons:

1. Because we have no assurances the magic is actually supernatural. We merely take in what we see--it may be called supernatural, or it may literally be called magic. Because of the definition of magic, we therefore assume magic is supernatural, when in fact, there are no observations which contradict a naturalistic explanation.
2. Using a priori reasoning, we can also establish the coherence of magics. Literature is designed to represent reality, to the extent to allow the reader to sink into the story. Thus, literature is, at its most basic level, a facsimile of reality. If the magic is truly supernatural, fickle, and not subject to any coherent laws, then it will not conform to any standard of reality; as humans, we live in a natural world which is subject to certain laws. In a literary facsimile, verisimilitude is of the essence in order to allow the reader (or viewer) to utilize suspension of disbelief. If the literature does not present all of its reality (including the magic!) as coherently governed, the reader will be discomfited. Thus, since the literature must, in of itself, convince the reader of its own reality, the magic will certainly be consistent with a logical world, governed by coherent laws.
3. To a primitive people, the workings of nature appeared to have a fickle and unpredictable nature: for example, the ancient Greek civilization attributed lightning to the wrath of Zeus. Thus, a viewer in our current society may attribute magical events to some sort of supernatural cause, when in fact there are possible natural explanations, descriptions, and rationalizations for magic.

The second major objection is in the arena of description: "Why do you think you can describe magic in terms of natural explanations?" The answer to this question is, "Because magic affects the natural world". In Star Wars, Yoda raises Luke's X-Wing from the swamp. While the mechanism may be unknown, to raise an object against a gravitational field requires changing its energy. We can easily, given the size of the X-Wing, deduce a minimum limit for Yoda's Force "output", using simple Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, in The Wheel of Time, several people discussing the Breaking of the World refer to one man turning a city (presumably a metropolis) into a "puddle of glass". Using basic inorganic chemistry, we can calculate that man's energy output with respect to his channeling ability.

So, then, what is the definition of magic? For the purposes of this web page, we will consider "magic" to be: Any event which appears to require a supernatural explanation or mechanism. This definition excludes technology which appears to be magic: for example, to us, the Death Star's hypermatter reactor is supernatural, but the Empire obviously has the technological capacity to create such reactors, thereby excluding the Death Star's reactor from our discussions.

What is canon, what is quasi-canon, and what is apocryphal literature? I take all the original published literature to be canon. Literature created after the fact, or by a different author, is quasi-canon. Apocryphal literature is fan-created, or unlicensed/unapproved literature regarding that particular story. The order of preference is: canon, followed by quasi-canon. Apocryphal literature is disregarded.

For example, the original Lord of the Rings is direct canon, as well as the Silmarillion. The History of Middle-Earth, compiled by Christopher Tolkien, is quasi-canon, as are the movies. All other literature about the Lord of the Rings is apocryphal.

The Harry Potter series is a slight exception. Due to personal preferences, I refuse to watch the movies. Thus, I discard the Harry Potter movies as apocryphal and I do not consider them in my discussion of the magic.

Thus, magic is discussible in terms of natural law, and can be rationalized; this fact is the basis of this website.