Modern science terms on fantasy

[Flaviosky]

Hello community,

I wanted to know how to tackle this. Let's say you have a fantasy novel with magic and everything and then you have spells that involve gravity, like black holes, accretion disks and things like that.

Would it be fine to describe the spell as a black hole, knowing that the term obviously is not part of the reality pictured in the story? How to describe the spell in a way that is consistent with the worldbuilding but doesn't sound stupid to a reader that knows what a black hole is?

Thanks in advance!

 

[sule]

For me it would depend on exactly who is doing this describing.

If it's an omniscient narrator who the readers understand has a level of scientific knowledge similar to a modern-day layman or higher, then their choosing to describe something as "a black hole" would be fine even if the characters in the story lack that knowledge; as a reader, I can assume they're picking the easiest description for my understanding.

If a character is doing the describing, then the metaphor/analogy/description should pull from their background. A character who has spent a lot of time on the ocean might describe a black hole as "a tidal pool of darkness," or such; a character more familiar with caverns might call it "a hungry cave mouth pulling me towards it."

So figure out who is describing it and, if they aren't an omniscient narrator, determine what in their past might compare to a black hole (or whatever other things need describing).

 

[Provincial]

If you just aren’t keen on using the phrase ‘black hole’ in that particular example, perhaps you could call it a ‘singularity spell’?

 

[paranoid marvin]

'Whirlpool' gives you pretty much the same effect, but without the need to go sci-fi-y.

 

[Swank]

I'm having trouble picturing the issue because fantasy typically deals with the events on a single planet. It isn't just that cosmological terms are sciency - they imply a scale of action that doesn't usually interact with the occupants of fantasy.

But if it works for your story, I would describe things with the terms appropriate to the society and their conception of reality. "A swallowing blackness". "Burning illumination." I'm thinking of an early steam powered pump for draining mineshafts "raising water with fire".

 

[Logan Selmes]

I’m curious what a black hole spell would be.

If it has anything to do with the scientific term I’d assume irreversible world destruction, one-time use only.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

If concerned you could use a different term for things typically explained through science. Such as "gravity well" instead of black hole.

 

[The Big Peat]

My advice would be write it in the way that makes most sense to you; be consistent with whatever you choose; and add explanations if beta readers query it.

To be a bit more specific -

would I query someone talking about a black hole spell in a fantasy book? Maybe, depending on how it was done. But at the end of the day, if someone can make a spell that could produce a black hole... why wouldn't they know what a black hole is? Or at least come up for a name for it which, in their language, basically means black hole?

Nowhere is it writ that a fantasy set in a mirror to our idealised past must have a scientific knowledge equal to that past, particularly if they have magic that allows them to get their hands on scientific phenomena with an ease that would make the average physicist go green with envy.

 

[paranoid marvin]

From my understanding of the question, Flaviosky is asking if it is okay to describe something to the reader that is not part of the reality of the world in which the story is set.

This would depend on the narrator. If the story is being told from the perspective of someone who inhabits the reality in which it is set, it wouldn't be realistic for them to mention black holes if they didn't know what one was.

So The Hobbit wouldn't compare Smaug to a dinosaur for example.

 

[Provincial]

You say the spells involve gravity. Do you mean that the spells set up the conditions which create black holes, accretion disks and the like, or do you mean that they use the power of black holes, accretion disks etcetera to perform other feats of magic?

If they create black holes and accretion disks, then I guess you should use some non-sciency name for them which is consistent with the universe you are inventing, like the suggestions made by @paranoid marvin and @Swank. When you describe their effects it will become obvious what they are supposed to be, and the reveal will add to the tension and the charm of the moment.

If they use the power of gravity to do other stuff, then it would be appropriate to give the spells names which describe what they do, not where the power comes from. They may all be “gravity-class spells”, but if one of them uses gravity to crush something flat it would be a “crush” spell, for instance.

Either way, I would suggest you don’t use the phrase ’black hole’ or the like because it would take your readers out of the reality you are trying to create.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Hello community,

I wanted to know how to tackle this. Let's say you have a fantasy novel with magic and everything and then you have spells that involve gravity, like black holes, accretion disks and things like that.

Would it be fine to describe the spell as a black hole, knowing that the term obviously is not part of the reality pictured in the story? How to describe the spell in a way that is consistent with the worldbuilding but doesn't sound stupid to a reader that knows what a black hole is?

Thanks in advance!

If your fantasy world has no knowledge of black holes, it would not make much sense to use the term to describe a spell that involves gravity. Unless the term is used by a narrator who has patently knowledge of both realities, theirs and ours, and is telling us.

The naming of a black hole is in itself poor. It doesn't describe what it does. The sucking part is missing. So, in-world of your reality, I imagine the spell would be described and named quite differently. A sucking void, a maelstrom of sorts.

 

[Astro Pen]

An aside. I couldn't help thinking of the "Telling Bone" (and "Eleck-Trickery" ) from Catweasle, the old UK kids tv program about a man from the medieval period who finds himself in the 20th century.

 

[Omits]

Should be interesting when the novice first creates one of these 'everything falls in' objects in terms of handling and placing it somewhere! It's main use would be as a rubbish bin (trash can) and somewhere to put the evidence of crime (dead bodies). Possession of such would be punishable by death!

 

[hvoad]

For me it would depend on exactly who is doing this describing.

If it's an omniscient narrator who the readers understand has a level of scientific knowledge similar to a modern-day layman or higher, then their choosing to describe something as "a black hole" would be fine even if the characters in the story lack that knowledge; as a reader, I can assume they're picking the easiest description for my understanding.

If a character is doing the describing, then the metaphor/analogy/description should pull from their background. A character who has spent a lot of time on the ocean might describe a black hole as "a tidal pool of darkness," or such; a character more familiar with caverns might call it "a hungry cave mouth pulling me towards it."

So figure out who is describing it and, if they aren't an omniscient narrator, determine what in their past might compare to a black hole (or whatever other things need describing).

I really like this answer, but also, they have witches in Doctor Who, so ....

 

[ANV]

If the description and naming convention disturbs you, when you are reading your text later, it doesn't work for the story. I would suggest finding a way how to describe it through vocabulary that would not disrupt the atmosphere that you are building. If you want to evoke that magicians are actually scientists, they just don't share the knowledge, that could be a good reason to give them a kind of 'scientific' vocabulary.

 

[Oligonicella]

Gravity hole works for both if it's new to the society.

 

[AllanR]

Even the term gravity didn't get used how we use it until the 1600s, well past most fantasy time periods. Before that, it was often a divine force, or earth, being the centre of everything, naturally drew things toward it. Or Aristotelian, things finding their natural place. (and things of Earth's material, naturally want to get to the centre of Earth)