The Old Hack

Darn it, stop rickrolling the forum.

I couldn't, I'd misplaced my angeling rod.

This was one reason for the massive migrations to the New World during the late 19th Century. People in Denmark who were trapped in poverty moved to the United States in massive numbers. It is believed that some 300.000 Danes moved to the United States in the years between 1865 and 1914. Given that Denmark had a population of about two and a half million people in 1901, that makes for a very significant percentage of all Danes.

We know that they are descended from Immortals. This may or may not be relevant.

I dunno, but it isn't a good idea to confuse them. The last time I tried sewing with a bowling pin, it didn't work very well.

Yikes. Sounds really unpleasant. Keep us posted.

It's okay, Kazzellin. We'll still be here when you have more time. Good luck and smooth sailing with your classes!

Sure thing and it certainly isn't impossible. Even Pandora herself admitted that she might not know all there is to know.

Hm. If it was, they have somehow forgotten or repressed it. Even Pandora seemed ignorant of the Will of Magic when she first met Disco Wizard.

I absolutely agree with this. Mind you, I feel that there is an important distinction to make: it doesn't blow a hole in the logic of Arthur's argument, only in its practicality. That is important, too, of course, but bear with me here, I am an anal-retentive old blowhard who likes to nitpick this kind of thing. (If for no other reason than because if the practical problems could be solved, the logic would still apply.) A still greater problem with this is of course that it may not even require a seer with this attitude, depending on how New Magic works. All it might take is a seer's student with that attitude. He or she could then form a school or a cult or whatever and eventually the information would leak from that, too.

Oh good. You have just made me envision Dvorak as a seer.

Me, too. My main reasons for not being 100% is that as others have argued, evil people have already gotten hold of magic and have been exploiting it with far too much success. My other reason is that if it becomes publicly known, ordinary people will finally have recourse to authorities or even private experts on magic to help them if they are in trouble. (I think there may be one of these in Chicago's Yellow Pages.) Also, Tedd was specifically working on inventing magitech that would allow ordinary people some kind of defence against hostile magic. Ironically, I believe that Arthur's conviction in part stems exactly from seeing what evil people who have gotten hold of magic can do. Denying people like that access to magic for what he hopes may be decades could be a powerful motivator for him. If he has spent all his life specifically being a fireman engaged in putting down troublemakers of this kind it would explain much, including that he considers this so much more important than what good things might be possible with magic. This is not even mentioning the synergy between magic and science. Imagine a 'harmless' ability to make people follow your suggestions for half an hour or so. Then imagine someone ruthless enough to use that ability to gain access to people who are responsible for nuclear weapons and tell them to open fire on someplace he doesn't like. Or entering the CDC and asking for some nice samples of Ebola and letting then loose in JFK Airport outside New York City.

Don't worry. I am keeping close watch on the Off Topic forum. As soon as anyone even tries to stray on topic here, I'll come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I suspected a scenario of this kind might be possible. I did mention that one reason for being as apparently heartless as Arthur could be the case of the disillusioned and badly burned out law enforcement officer, such as Warden Morgan from the Dresden Files.

Thank you all for the vote of confidence. I'll continue to do my best. I do think that an assistant mod might be a good idea.

I submit to you the magnificent Backstroke of the West as an example of the many, many things that can go wrong when attempting to translate into a not very well understood language. (Page is from the Wayback Machine and may take a little time to load.)

The attitude itself is a leftover from the days when the forums basically remained unmoderated and other experiences in similar electronic gathering places where the Law of the Jungle would have been a significant improvement on what we had. It is not a very productive attitude, I grant, but it is born from a great deal of cynicism and bitterness and the conviction that certain people are just not worth the trouble to waste civilised behavior on. And whenever I politely disagree with someone only to be met with unthinking insults and stacked arguments, all those bad memories come back to life. The unfortunate truth is that you are stuck with a scarred and bitter cynic for a moderator and that every once in a while the veneer of politeness I have erected to simulate a civilised being will slip. It is possible that you would be better off with a different moderator and if asked for one I would without hesitation name one or two posters here I deem able to do a superior job. I am certain that the admins would be happy to set a new moderator up. And in all honesty being moderator can be exhausting and thankless. If the regular posters here should ever wish me to step down I would do so with more relief than anything else.

Possible, I suppose. Given that family trees can grow impressively large in just a couple of centuries. But it seems to me that it is highly likely that there are other half-immortals out there as well so it is by no means guaranteed.

Not everyone. Unless everyone begins at the level where they show no respect for others, in which case there is no lowest level to go down to from there. You are a more kindly person than I am. I, being a fundamentally harsh and mean person, believe firmly in tit for tat. I do not take well to attempts to feed me taurine ordure; I normally respond to them by shoving said ordure right down the throat of the original poster.

I suppose it is a relief that you have chosen to make bad jokes rather than continuing those tedious stacked arguments of yours because you cannot bear the notion of someone disagreeing with you and actually having a point. Carry on.

Good! Keep us posted.

Stop using stacked arguments and I will treat you respectfully. As long as you talk to me as if you think I am an idiot, I will show you exactly the same respect back. Ho hum. You are really fond of stacked arguments. I suppose that next you will ask me if I have stopped molesting dachshunds.

Indeed. There is normally a fine distinction between unsympathetic and outright villainous. If the authority figure is like that sadistic woman in the fifth Harry Potter book (her name escapes me just now) who is clearly abusing her power, there is not much doubt that she is a villain. On the other hand, merely being distant and authoritarian along with similar 'unsympathetic' traits might indicate that there is more to the character. For example, in the Harry Dresden books the Warden Morgan is constantly cast as an enemy of Harry out to get him. But he gradually shows traits that indicate that he had suffered so much trauma and betrayal that he had become embittered and burned out. Finally, in the book Turn Coat, we get to see a more human side of him. Sweetikins, if we accept that logic, we also have to accept that we can't find out whether he is wrong, either. I reject it as well as your contrived argument that we have to go into the Vault. Adding a ludicrous consequence to something you disagree with does not strengthen your case; it merely implies that you are so unsure of your position that you have to stack your argument in order to make it stand up. Isn't it? Please give me examples that will support this claim of yours. Personally I would claim that they are very much the same with the only difference being that a writer's universe must be internally logically consistent. But that is not 'logic'. That is merely you making a grand speech about logic and then adding a claim of yours, hoping that in the confusion it would be taken for logic. If we look at the 'story logic' definition of a good guy or 'right', we enter the exact same set of problems that we have in the real world, namely ethics and morals -- and neither of these two are constructed purely from logic. In fact, many a moral dilemma that is constructed through apparent logic is actually so contrived as to merely be apologia for a particular philosophical standpoint, for example utilitarism or pragmatism. If we look more closely at Arthur, his standpoint in the situation above is similar to that of a military commander who must decide how to act on incoming intelligence. If he acts, he can save a few lives short term but runs a large risk of giving away to the enemy that their secrecy has been compromised, potentially losing his intelligence source. If he chooses deliberate inaction, people die but he retains the long term advantage of his intelligence source remaining unnoticed in place. Arthur, here, deliberately chooses not to commit mages against the bulldragon because ordinary cops with guns will do just as well (or poorly) as mages. Sending in police mages would be confirmation to everybody that magic is real and would add to the suspicion that it is possible to learn. And he does that because he fears the long-term consequences of committing mages. He makes this clear the moment that he states that he refuses to deliberately create an incident that might cause the change because Magic might see it as an attempt to swindle it. He has chosen a course of action that involves deliberate nonaction, not out of malice but because he does not wish to make matters worse than they are -- and perhaps because he genuinely believes that matters will be worse if he acts rashly. This does not make him a 'good guy' or 'right', but it does make him a man caught between a number of bad choices and not seeing a good choice attempting to choose the least of the available evils. And I would hardly call him evil for that.

I am afraid that I have to disagree in almost every particular with the above. One, a magic change will not automatically 'blow up' EGS. What has always made this story good to me is the characterisation. Hypothetically, magic changing might even be a good thing for the storyline. In fact I would say that both outcomes could be fascinating. Severe changes and hidden magic might lead to new stories and different character dynamics due to power shifting around and perhaps new spells or even new ways of casting spells. Minor changes and public magic leads to a different challenge -- an entirely new world situation as everybody on Earth will have to come to terms with the existence of magic. Of the two above, I personally would consider option two by far the more daunting challenge. I would not blame Dan if he preferred option one; it would mean less work for him and more focus on his main characters. Consider: How would the various religions of the world react to magic? (Hint: read history.) How would the various governments cope? Dictatorships everywhere might seek to forcibly recruit mages and weaponise them as would certain of the dodgier democracies. How would society at large cope? And so forth. The relationship between Van and Tedd might be interesting but it will barely be touched in a sub-chapter like this one. And nonetheless Van is here. I do not think he has nothing to contribute in this discussion merely because he isn't very old. In fact, he might well have a perspective most adults lack. So many adults automatically ignore the perspective of children and consider them unimportant. This is a bias that I do not think the Will of Magic is subject to. Finally, you missed an important option. We should look forward to finding out if Arthur is wrong, deluded, downright evil or right. Yes, he has not been portrayed as very sympathetic. That doesn't mean he is automatically wrong.

It keeps going, and going, and going...