Exercises in magical thinking are a waste of mental effort

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

We get a lot of “what if” threads here about what would happen if some fantasy/religious/magical thing had happened a different way. I always roll my eyes, say to myself “none of that stuff actually happened anyway” and move on. Occasionally, mostly with LotR* questions, I do get wrapped up in it for a while, until they start referring back to Eru and the demi-gods and angels behind everything, and then I lose interest. I don’t grudge the folks who like that sort of thing, but I find it painful to try to exercise my logic muscles in the pursuit of magical thinking.

I’m not asking for anything to change here. But I do wonder from time to time if other people also find all that stuff, well, silly.

*I think that’s a tribute to how thoroughly Tolkien thought about his universe, instead of just pulling magic tricks out of his ass for each new situation, like Rowling. Many of the LotR questions are about scholarship in the canon, which can make them interesting.

2

Surely Tolkien’s thorough work was a monumental exercise of magical thinking? But you’re saying that’s a waste of effort?

3

Not for him, at any rate. And I have read and am reading a fair amount about that imaginary universe, so not for me either. But endless debates about what if Gandalf had a magic something that would do something, would Sauron do something different? seem arid, to me.

4

No, IMO, there’s a difference between stuff that does happen in a fictional text, and debating a hypothetical counterfactual about something that doesn’t happen in that text. “Why doesn’t Hamlet kill Claudius right away?” is a question that doesn’t have a definite right answer, but debating it is still meaningful. Most obviously, if you’re an actor playing Hamlet, talking it out can help you arrive at YOUR answer, but also, it opens up all sorts of other questions about how certain you have to be before taking action; whether vigilante justice is even a good idea in the first place; whether Hamlet has a death wish or, conversely, is using every possible rationalization he can to put off doing something that he knows will almost certainly result in his death; whether or not Hamlet (who is an experienced theatergoer) knows he’s in a revenge tragedy, etc. Some of these questions have real-world applications, and all of them can lead you to a deeper understanding of Hamlet as a work of literature.

“What if Hamlet had an AK-47?” is not such a question. As a literature professor, I’d encourage the first question (even if I’m personally a bit bored with it), but not the second one.

5

Very hard disagree. Engaging with a well-built fictional world is what makes them fun. It’s why they wind up with such large followings.

I also tend to believe it keeps the brain flexible to consider hypotheticals. And, while I’m okay with many kinds, I do think the one that has no real-world implications at all can be more freeing.

What I do think it dumb is getting riled up about them—for the reason you say you find them pointless.

6

Hmm. I hadn’t thought about things like that. I’d say that’s an example of one that isn’t engaging with the text. Maybe I could see someone very clever finding being able to ground it in the text, but it would seem very difficult, and it wouldn’t work all that well as a discussion without that grounding.

7

Is the OP talking strictly about extending literature / fiction with hypothetical counterfacuals, or is he including real world stuff too? E.g. are these two questions in scope for this thread:

  1. Suppose Hitler had stopped all aggression after taking Poland. What would Europe be like today?

  2. Suppose the Moon simply blinked out of existence on this upcoming Tuesday. What would happen to Earth and her inhabitants? To human society?

As the learned @Fretful_Porpentine points out, counterfactuals are a great way to explore the why’s of what did happen, and the shape of the probabilities surrounding what didn’t. And to gain insight into how contingently connected everything is.

8

I don’t think something is a waste of mental effort as long as it doesn’t go too deep into the weeds and is fun.

At a certain point, yes, you want to bow out of the thread and be like “OK, keep hunting for the 10,000th digit of 'what if pi weren’t an irrational number?” But most hypotheticals can be meaningful to entertain.

9

Yeah, I think in general, I am wary of the notion of ‘stop thinking about that thing’. I suppose there are some categories of thought that it might be good to try to stop, but wondering what if doesn’t feel like it should be one of them, to me.

10

OK, but what if Macbeth had one?

11

Neither of those options are based on magical backgrounds. Fiction, including literature, is often based on the real universe, or a possible real universe (in some cases of speculative fiction, for example). Counterfactuals might be based on the real universe or not – what if Hitler died of a heart attack in 1935 is very different from what if Hitler’s ghost was still walking the earth.

I draw a difference between something that is imaginary (i.e. fictional) and something that is based on the existence of magical processes or abilities.

Absolutely true, but if nothing in the situation has any connection to the real world, I find the utility limited.

12

I remember one of my history professors refused to entertain any such question when I was an undergraduate. I think it can be a fun mental exercise, but such threads belong in Mindless Pointless Stuff I Must Share rather than Great Debates.

13

The phrase “magical thinking” has a technical meaning, or maybe more than one, but I don’t think that’s the sense in which you’re using the phrase?

14

I agree with the OP. It’s the fantastical alternate endings to past events, the what ifs musings that I pass over, seems pointless uninteresting to me.

15

I agree that magical thinking what-ifs regarding fictional works are a bit silly, but if fans of the work enjoy the exercise, then it’s worthwhile for them to engage in it.

On the other hand, I think well-constructed what-ifs concerning real historical events is quite productive, providing the what-ifs (counterfactuals) had a plausible chance of occurring.

History tells us what happened but asking “what-if” creates a new lens to explore the past and its impact on the present. History is contingent upon numerous things that have the potential to change everything. By looking at how things might have been, you can get a better look at why things are.

What if the Constitution did not pass? What if the Allies lost World War II? What if the Soviets got to the moon first? These events and many others could have happened (often by a very small margin), and they would have had a significant impact on our world. Understanding these alternate worlds helps us better understand the world we actually live in, and helps us understand the mindsets of people before the events occurred. Exploring these alternate paths provides a deeper insight into the reasons behind the current state of affairs.

I’m a couple lectures into The Great Courses series, 10 Great What-Ifs of American History. It’s well presented and fascinating to ponder.

The first lecture is titled, What If Lee Won at Gettysburg? Well, if the Confederates had succeeded in taking Little Round Top on the second day of the Battle at Gettysburg (only by sheer luck they didn’t), this may have turned the tide of the Civil War. The South wouldn’t have won the war, but something like this was likely to have occurred: a stalemate ensues, draft riots break out in NYC, Lincoln loses the 1864 election, a negotiated peace secures the independence of the Confederacy, France brokers peace talks that secure independence for the Confederacy in exchange for Confederate support of French interference in Mexico, France uses the slaveholding republic as a buffer zone, while the French-Confederate partnership pushes abolitionist Britain and the free-soil Union into an alliance. When France declares war on Prussia in 1870, Britain, the United States, and the Confederacy are drawn into a world war—all because the Union failed to hold Little Round Top.

The second lecture is titled, What If Lewis and Clark Vanished? They may not have succeeded, if a single grizzly bear succeeded in killing Meriwether Lewis (it was a very close call). There was no Manifest Destiny until Lewis and Clark succeeding in finding the Pacific Ocean passage. Had they failed, it would have reshaped America, Texas, and the Lakota Nation.

History is replete with close-call counterfactuals. They are important to consider.

16

Ah, OK.

I read / watch exactly zero literature involving magic, so it’s not a genre I can comment on. I don’t see the attraction; not at all. But my ignorant initial reaction to counter “factuals” in magical settings matches yours. If arbitrary character X can do arbitrary thing Y in canon, then some fanfic or whatever asking “Why not add doing Z too?” seems … sterile.

ISTM that almost any answer can be justified as “It’s magic; it works however I say it does.” To which I might respond “And if you add Z, why not add A, B, Q, and nasal Demons in the same breath?” That way lies nothing but mental chaos IMO.


My Moon example was chosen deliberately because insofar as we know there is no way for matter to blink out of existence. Only magic can do that.

With the consequence that pretty quickly that kind of counterfactual devolves into folks trying to analyze the physics of the disappearance and it’s immediate consequences while others point out that physics is a coherent whole and once you rip a hole in it, you can’t assume ceteris parabus for everything else. There will be unpredictable consequences of this newly discovered phenomenon and nobody has, or can have, any clue what they might be. It’s akin to the old saying “that one drop of sewage in a barrel of wine makes a barrel of sewage.” The logical pollution is instant and total.

How the absence of the Moon would affect the geophysical Earth, the biosphere, and human society are topics that can at least be meaningfully discussed in the same vein as the Hitler counterfactuals. It’s the transition from “moon here” to “moon not here” that is magic both impervious to physics, and precludes much in the way of useful discussion about the transition of everything else physical affected by the transition.

17

In order to give an answer to a historical what-if that isn’t complete BS, a certain amount of knowledge is required—knowledge of the people involved, the situation, relevant technological or cultural factors, human nature in general, the way the world works, etc. The more knowledge you have, the better an answer you can give. But no one has enough knowledge to be able to give an example that matches what actually would have happened with anything close to 100% probability.

When the situations are fictional rather than historical, and especially when dealing with fictional situations that involve the fantastic, mythical, speculative, etc., some of the elements of the situation have been invented, so any knowledge of them would have to come directly from, or be deducible from, what the story’s creator has told us; and sometimes even that creator doesn’t know.

18

I’m with Lucy:

19

Some writers of fantasy fiction are more scrupulous about their world-building than others. In particular, some use what are known as “hard magic systems,” where magic in their world works according to specifically defined rules and limitations, which are explained to the reader/audience.

20

It seems more to do with fictional what-ifs than fantasy or magical things.

IRL counterfactuals, like “What if Hitler didn’t declare war on America” or “What if Hannibal marched on Rome after Cannea?” are an interesting way to think about history IMO.

But fictional counterfactuals are kinda silly. I mean what does “What if Gandalf decided to get the eagles to take Frodo and the ring to mount doom at the start of LoTR” even mean? Gandalf is not a real person. The events of the war of the Ring did not play our how they did because of the decisions made by Gandalf. They happened because that’s the narrative arc Tolkein wrote.

Not that there is anything objectionable about it if people want to the discuss that. It just seems silly to me.