Stephen Strange: Doctor Strange Appreciation 2021

[MadFacedKid]

I think it's been confirmed that the Night Nurse will be returning in the Multiverse of Madness. I don't know what this means for Clea though. I thought the relationship between Strange and Palmer was INCREDIBLY toxic, however. They seemed to refuse to lower the decibel levels whenever they "talked" to each other.

I’d honestly bring up Stark but then again I guess Dr. Strange is a bit more arrogant and quippy given their encounter with each other. Stark seems to back down when it comes to Pepper as well. I’m honestly surprised at the idea Night Nurse is returning she seems like she’d be a bit out of place in a movie like Multiverse of Madness. I like the idea of the character because you could tell before Dr. Strange was on his journey to becoming a better person she had faith or atleast hope that he could be. She’s a bit of that reminder of that journey and what he lost to get to that point as well given she was a nurse in the hospital he worked in. I’d think that it’s possible with who Strange is now a possible relationship could work if they went that route.

In the comics, after the writers broke up the relationship between Strange and Clea, his relationships with human women were always awkward because he was still in his, 'I can't be emotionally open because I am Sorcerer Supreme' mode, and he was still pining for Clea. In the first movie, his relationship with Christine Palmer was purposely awful because it was meant to demonstrate that he was a completely self-absorbed, egotistical ass before he became Sorcerer Supreme. No self-respecting woman in her right mind is going to maintain a relationship with pre-Sorcerer Supreme Stephen Strange. It doesn't matter how handsome, smart, debonair, witty, or wealthy he might be. Now that Strange has learned to put himself in perspective, could he have a better relationship with Christine Palmer? Maybe. Maybe not. Becoming Sorcerer Supreme essentially makes Strange a lightening rod for all of the malignant mystical entitles out there who want to take over the earth. Those forces need to go through him to take control of the earth, so just being around Strange would make Christine Palmer and easy target to go through to get to him. A relationship with a non-magical woman becomes a liability for him, and a threat for her. Having a loving relationship with another powerful magic user affords more protection for the woman who can defend herself against magical threats, but then it still leaves them dealing with Strange's own belief that he can't allow himself to get too involved with anyone, because indulging that aspect of himself distracts him from his focus on his duty. That's something for Marvel and the writers to figure out. I can say that when Clea left once because she thought that Morganna Blessing loved Strange more than she did, so she figured Strange needed to be with a human woman who loved him, Strange went utterly to pieces and became a weeping, unglued mess who fell victim to the demon D'Spayre. He doesn't handle loneliness well, even though he pushes people away who get too close. (Master of the Mystic Arts 54-55).

They could always skim over that whole Sorcerer Supreme duty of Strange deciding to be alone. They practically have him jumping around in the comics. Or it could be one of those things where he simply doesn’t have a love interest he sticks with in the film. He’d probably be the first male character without a potential love interest if they go that route. I honestly find it interesting that in the MCU he met Night Nurse before he did Clea which in the comics I believe it was visa versa? So I’d be surprised if Christine is returning and it didn’t go that route. I’d imagine there’d be some type of chemical tension between Strange and both women however though. Christine maybe spinning off into a Disney Plus show and Clea possibly becoming a fan favorite and getting all the love that comes with it. Mini Series possibly more.

[DigiCom]

Wow! Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and insightful response to my question. I could not have asked for a better answer to my inquiry. Now I sort of understand why writers shy away from the religious elements in magic. Which is a shame in my opinion. J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis never shied away from their strong faiths in their works and their novels remain extremely popular up to this day. I do remember that fantasy dramas were quite popular when I was growing up. Shows like Highway to Heaven and Touched by an Angel had VERY large followings. I think morality and ethics can be a big part of magical stories, if handled in a non-saccharine and non-cheesy way. And yeah, most writers from Marvel probably have a very feeble understanding of the occult. They seem to love the pew pew pew though! Which I also love to a certain extent!

There are a few caveats, though. First off, JRRT and Lewis were writing in a VERY different time, for very different audience. They didn't have to include X amount of action every chapter. In fact, for all his power, one could argue that Gandalf never actually cast a spell on the page in LOTR. (There was one example in The Hobbit, but it was pretty low key). HE actually preferred a sword.

Secondly, they didn't have to make it visually exciting. They were writing prose. That changes how the reader approaches the material.

Finally, they didn't have to deal with the serial medium. They had one story (well, 7 in Lewis's case, but you get my meaning) to tell, not month after month after month afetr month.

[DigiCom]

Whoa. That stuff happened? That's NUTS. I didn't know Strange was capable of such magical feats. I agree with you, those kinds of stories would not be taken as seriously today as they were then. So I get why Marvel dropped them. I will continue to look into belief/religion based magical systems in the Marvel Universe after you showed me that they exist.

The entire thing happened off-panel, tho. It was setup for the "catastrophe magic" I mentioned earlier.

Speaking about how magic is used in fiction, I have read that the Harry Potter novels did SOMEWHAT of a decent job of trying to maintain some INTERNAL CONSISTENCY even without elaborate magical systems.

Not really. Rowling had a tendency to have her characters forget or remember certain skills when the story required it. Case in point, in the first book, the Headmaster was too far away to return in time because he had to fly to the Ministry. A couple of books later, everyone travels by fireplace, and he's capable of long-range teleportation...

[Daedra]

Whoa. That stuff happened? That's NUTS. I didn't know Strange was capable of such magical feats. I agree with you, those kinds of stories would not be taken as seriously today as they were then. So I get why Marvel dropped them. I will continue to look into belief/religion based magical systems in the Marvel Universe after you showed me that they exist.

Speaking about how magic is used in fiction, I have read that the Harry Potter novels did SOMEWHAT of a decent job of trying to maintain some INTERNAL CONSISTENCY even without elaborate magical systems. Here's a quote that I found which might be familiar to you:

"Also, my favorite part of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was the conversation between the muggle minister and the wizard minister in the first chapter:

"But you can do magic, you should be able to sort out anything."

"Problem is, the other side can do magic too."

I think I understand why the MCU equated magic with science years ago. Actually one of my favorite authors, Kurt Vonnegut, stated that: "Science is magic that works." in his classic novel Cat's Cradle.

Science is not magic and magic is not science, this trope about them being the same thing is just overused, overestimated and usually it is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the most interesting intellectual and spiritual ramifications typical of a fictional world where magic is real

[Albert1981]

I’d honestly bring up Stark but then again I guess Dr. Strange is a bit more arrogant and quippy given their encounter with each other. Stark seems to back down when it comes to Pepper as well. I’m honestly surprised at the idea Night Nurse is returning she seems like she’d be a bit out of place in a movie like Multiverse of Madness. I like the idea of the character because you could tell before Dr. Strange was on his journey to becoming a better person she had faith or atleast hope that he could be. She’s a bit of that reminder of that journey and what he lost to get to that point as well given she was a nurse in the hospital he worked in. I’d think that it’s possible with who Strange is now a possible relationship could work if they went that route.




They could always skim over that whole Sorcerer Supreme duty of Strange deciding to be alone. They practically have him jumping around in the comics. Or it could be one of those things where he simply doesn’t have a love interest he sticks with in the film. He’d probably be the first male character without a potential love interest if they go that route. I honestly find it interesting that in the MCU he met Night Nurse before he did Clea which in the comics I believe it was visa versa? So I’d be surprised if Christine is returning and it didn’t go that route. I’d imagine there’d be some type of chemical tension between Strange and both women however though. Christine maybe spinning off into a Disney Plus show and Clea possibly becoming a fan favorite and getting all the love that comes with it. Mini Series possibly more.

It was thought for a long while that McAdams wouldn't reprise her role in the Multiverse of Madness, but I think the COVID-related delays changed things. I don't know what caused these story alterations, but I guess Marvel Studios have their reasons for bringing Christine back. I like McAdams as an actress so I have no problem seeing her return. But she represents Strange's PAST. I think Clea could show up in his future. I do think Strange will be like Stark and back off whenever his girlfriend/wife puts her foot down. But I think his quippy personality is here to stay.

[Albert1981]

There are a few caveats, though. First off, JRRT and Lewis were writing in a VERY different time, for very different audience. They didn't have to include X amount of action every chapter. In fact, for all his power, one could argue that Gandalf never actually cast a spell on the page in LOTR. (There was one example in The Hobbit, but it was pretty low key). HE actually preferred a sword.

Secondly, they didn't have to make it visually exciting. They were writing prose. That changes how the reader approaches the material.

Finally, they didn't have to deal with the serial medium. They had one story (well, 7 in Lewis's case, but you get my meaning) to tell, not month after month after month afetr month.

Here's a comment about the relative lack of magic used in earlier fiction which dovetails nicely with what you just said:

"Actually, if you look at classic, pre-1970s fantasy fiction, there's precious little magic, and when it does happen, there's nothing much in the way of magic as a "system." In all of LotR, Gandalf uses magic maybe less than half a dozen times. In a lot of other books, like The Once and Future King or The Last Unicorn, it really serves as a plot device more than anything else. The notion of magic as having rules or systems came mostly from SF writers who turned (briefly, in most cases) to fantasy in the '40s and '50s, like Heinlein, de Camp, and Anderson, though in a lot of cases they were just applying rational systems to what had previously been a load of obtuse mystical hooey. A lot of these stories, many of which appeared in John Campbell's Unknown, could be seen as the forerunners of modern horror and urban fantasy."

I wonder if the Multiverse of Madness will go OVERBOARD when it comes to the use of magic. If it is used sparingly, it remains mysterious and exotic to the viewers. And "rules" are automatically and organically built into the story by adopting that approach. I'm not sure if fans would be receptive to that.

I personally like the prose. The Chronicle of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings were great books. But the comics are different and serialized so the nature of the storytelling is different. It might surprise you that besides Strange 2, my next most anticipated MCU project is Armor Wars. I like the how Rhodey is not like even Hawkeye, Black Widow and Nick Fury when it comes to superhero "skills." He's just like Stark. A dude with a lot of fancy toys. I think I might be the only poster on this thread who feels that way.

[Albert1981]

The entire thing happened off-panel, tho. It was setup for the "catastrophe magic" I mentioned earlier.



Not really. Rowling had a tendency to have her characters forget or remember certain skills when the story required it. Case in point, in the first book, the Headmaster was too far away to return in time because he had to fly to the Ministry. A couple of books later, everyone travels by fireplace, and he's capable of long-range teleportation...

Off-panel is like off-screen to me. BORING! I didn't read the Harry Potter books, but I had no idea Rowling did the whole deus ex machina thing in her works as well.

[Albert1981]

Science is not magic and magic is not science, this trope about them being the same thing is just overused, overestimated and usually it is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the most interesting intellectual and spiritual ramifications typical of a fictional world where magic is real

I don't ENTIRELY agree with this (though some of what you stated DOES make a lot of sense to me) and that's because I have read several comments elsewhere online who have challenged the idea that magic shouldn't work like science in fiction. Here are a few that make that very case:

"But the notion that magic in mythology and literature does not work like science is a little unreal. Look at the Kabbalah or the Key of Solomon. Look at divination practices cross-culturally. Read about jukurrpa in Aboriginal culture. Every single one of these real-world examples demonstrates that real-world understandings of magic are just as systematized as what a reader expects from an intelligent author. If there is no rhyme or reason to the way magic works in a piece of literature, it has the effect of deus ex machina, which breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes for bad literature.

For most of our written history, magic has been treated as an extension of science or vice versa. In fact, there was no line between natural philosophy and mysticism for most of the Medieval period. Even some granddaddies of modern science like Sir Isaac Newton considered it possible to alchemically manufacture gold, or mathematically calculate the date of the Judgement Day. Brilliant individuals like Dr. John Dee spent decades trying to commune with angels and spirits, and built incredibly complex systems of rules around these goals. In earlier eras, the lines between religion, magic, philosophy and science were extremely blurry. The people writing about natural philosophy during the Middle Ages did perceive themselves as learned scholars dealing with strictly definable facts that could be discerned through logical thought. They gave us much of our modern perception of wizards: grey-bearded men studying magical tomes, boiling elixirs and performing rituals with wands and magic circles."

So throughout MOST of the WRITTEN era of human history, our notions of science have blended seamlessly with our notions of magic. So I do understand why culturally speaking, in fiction, they are often regarded as one and the same.

[Daedra]

I don't ENTIRELY agree with this (though some of what you stated DOES make a lot of sense to me) and that's because I have read several comments elsewhere online who have challenged the idea that magic shouldn't work like science in fiction. Here are a few that make that very case:

"But the notion that magic in mythology and literature does not work like science is a little unreal. Look at the Kabbalah or the Key of Solomon. Look at divination practices cross-culturally. Read about jukurrpa in Aboriginal culture. Every single one of these real-world examples demonstrates that real-world understandings of magic are just as systematized as what a reader expects from an intelligent author. If there is no rhyme or reason to the way magic works in a piece of literature, it has the effect of deus ex machina, which breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes for bad literature.

For most of our written history, magic has been treated as an extension of science or vice versa. In fact, there was no line between natural philosophy and mysticism for most of the Medieval period. Even some granddaddies of modern science like Sir Isaac Newton considered it possible to alchemically manufacture gold, or mathematically calculate the date of the Judgement Day. Brilliant individuals like Dr. John Dee spent decades trying to commune with angels and spirits, and built incredibly complex systems of rules around these goals. In earlier eras, the lines between religion, magic, philosophy and science were extremely blurry. The people writing about natural philosophy during the Middle Ages did perceive themselves as learned scholars dealing with strictly definable facts that could be discerned through logical thought. They gave us much of our modern perception of wizards: grey-bearded men studying magical tomes, boiling elixirs and performing rituals with wands and magic circles."

So throughout MOST of the WRITTEN era of human history, our notions of science have blended seamlessly with our notions of magic. So I do understand why culturally speaking, in fiction, they are often regarded as one and the same.

It does not matter really, humanity inability to discern between science and magic is a thing of the past, our progress finally gave us all the cultural and technological tools we required to rightly and finally discern between the two.
As long as our modern civilization keeps prospering magic will never pass for science again.

[DigiCom]

Off-panel is like off-screen to me. BORING! I didn't read the Harry Potter books, but I had no idea Rowling did the whole deus ex machina thing in her works as well.

The books have TIME TRAVEL, and the only time it is used is to help a swot take more classes.

So throughout MOST of the WRITTEN era of human history, our notions of science have blended seamlessly with our notions of magic. So I do understand why culturally speaking, in fiction, they are often regarded as one and the same.

Frankly, what's true in history is almost irrelevant. The reason that writers tend to codify magic has more to do with the requirements of storytelling, not historical accuracy. There's an old line about it that I love:

"Reality is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."

I might also remind folks of this old maxim, by the late Arthur C. Clarke, a champion of hard sci-fi:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Of course, because I'm a snarky old fart, I prefer this variant:



Technomagick is my jam.

[Albert1981]

It does not matter really, humanity inability to discern between science and magic is a thing of the past, our progress finally gave us all the cultural and technological tools we required to rightly and finally discern between the two.
As long as our modern civilization keeps prospering magic will never pass for science again.

I'm talking about fiction. Modern civilization will never let magic pass for science again. But the literary arts hasn't seemed to have gotten the memo. By applying science-based rules to magical stories, books are STILL blending the two. And that's even affected the MCU up until very recently when they said science and magic are the same thing. Perhaps they were just talking about Asgardian magic?

[Albert1981]

The books have TIME TRAVEL, and the only time it is used is to help a swot take more classes.



Frankly, what's true in history is almost irrelevant. The reason that writers tend to codify magic has more to do with the requirements of storytelling, not historical accuracy. There's an old line about it that I love:

"Reality is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."

I might also remind folks of this old maxim, by the late Arthur C. Clarke, a champion of hard sci-fi:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Of course, because I'm a snarky old fart, I prefer this variant:



Technomagick is my jam.

Yes, many writers have a very superficial and fragile grasp of human history, and that is often reflected in their works. That quote about fiction is pretty amusing. But even having authors like Vonnegut and Clarke describe magic through a scientific point of view shows to me how literature and fiction in general sees the two as related. That comic is very funny and witty.

[Albert1981]

I think the idea of making magic make sense in literature comes not from a desire to make it more like science fiction, but from a desire to avoid some things which are really bad in fiction period. If magic is really limitless, then there is no real challenge to fulfill in the plot (or alternatively there are gaping plot holes). If magic is completely unknowable as a system to the reader, then often any use of magic will feel like deus ex machina, or alternatively like the writer is contradicting herself.

This state came about simply because it was useful in avoiding common literary problems.

Here are some quotes I largely agree with:

"I believe many folks who oppose rules on magic think that logic equals science. Religion (the Catholic Church especially) has held up reason and logic as the path to understanding God through theology. Best example of highly logical and consistent magic is the Dresden Files."

"Look at every form of magic or mysticism in real life - it's all about people trying to find rules in, or enforce rules upon, an unfathomable, uncaring cosmos. Alchemists, animists, hedge wizards, wiccans, astrologers, you name it, it was a crazy old man or woman working "magic" to unlock the secrets of the universe. Even the "rule free" systems, they're just very vague rules and the characters don't always know what they are."

"Talk to a practitioner of Wicca, they have rules. Medicine men/witch doctors, they have rules. Nature has cause and effect ... rules ... why would magic be any different? If magic is a part of nature then rules MUST apply, if not ... well then the very existence of magic in the world would mean that Nature would be fighting to contain and control magic... the magic itself might not have rules, but the means to access it does. Or the means to use it without a backlash from nature does."

"Internal consistency can either create rules as you go along, or be based on pre-existing rules... Either way, if you have both internal consistency and magic in your story, you have a magic system. If you don't have internal consistency, you don't have a well-written story. Ergo, all well-written fantasy stories have a magic system; even if they don't fetishize the details of the mechanics, it's still there, underlying what they write."

Maybe I should start reading the Dresden Files!

[Clea]

I don't ENTIRELY agree with this (though some of what you stated DOES make a lot of sense to me) and that's because I have read several comments elsewhere online who have challenged the idea that magic shouldn't work like science in fiction. Here are a few that make that very case:

"But the notion that magic in mythology and literature does not work like science is a little unreal. Look at the Kabbalah or the Key of Solomon. Look at divination practices cross-culturally. Read about jukurrpa in Aboriginal culture. Every single one of these real-world examples demonstrates that real-world understandings of magic are just as systematized as what a reader expects from an intelligent author. If there is no rhyme or reason to the way magic works in a piece of literature, it has the effect of deus ex machina, which breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes for bad literature.

For most of our written history, magic has been treated as an extension of science or vice versa. In fact, there was no line between natural philosophy and mysticism for most of the Medieval period. Even some granddaddies of modern science like Sir Isaac Newton considered it possible to alchemically manufacture gold, or mathematically calculate the date of the Judgement Day. Brilliant individuals like Dr. John Dee spent decades trying to commune with angels and spirits, and built incredibly complex systems of rules around these goals. In earlier eras, the lines between religion, magic, philosophy and science were extremely blurry. The people writing about natural philosophy during the Middle Ages did perceive themselves as learned scholars dealing with strictly definable facts that could be discerned through logical thought. They gave us much of our modern perception of wizards: grey-bearded men studying magical tomes, boiling elixirs and performing rituals with wands and magic circles."

So throughout MOST of the WRITTEN era of human history, our notions of science have blended seamlessly with our notions of magic. So I do understand why culturally speaking, in fiction, they are often regarded as one and the same.

This is not actually true. Magic has not been associated with science, in the past or now. There has never even been one dominant form of magical practice in the west. Orderly, high ceremonial magical belief systems coexisted with belief in the evil eye, hedge witchcraft, charms, enchanted springs, gods, faery beings, curses, etc. Pray and make offerings to the right god/spirit and that entity would smite your enemies for you, or cure your kids, or bring you good luck, or whatever just because that entity likes to be worshipped by humans. Ceremonial magical systems had lots of structure and rules (because this belief system was based on the notion that the spiritual world was organized and populated in a series of hierarchies that increased in power the closer they were to the divine) but other belief systems didn't have that sort of structure at all. The image of the sorcerer in his spooky tower pouring over his ancient tomes and conjuring up spirits does make for fun fiction though, that's true.

So far as Doctor Strange and the Marvel magical world is concerned, a lot of the depiction of the magic in the stories is based on popular, fantasy depictions of high ceremonial magic as well as aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism and other structured ceremonial systems. At the same time, the Marvel magical universe also includes witchcraft, gods and demons, charms and hexes, and varying concepts of Hell and damnation. It's a mishmash of everything and none of it has anything to do with science.

[Albert1981]

This is not actually true. Magic has not been associated with science, in the past or now. There has never even been one dominant form of magical practice in the west. Orderly, high ceremonial magical belief systems coexisted with belief in the evil eye, hedge witchcraft, charms, enchanted springs, gods, faery beings, curses, etc. Pray and make offerings to the right god/spirit and that entity would smite your enemies for you, or cure your kids, or bring you good luck, or whatever just because that entity likes to be worshipped by humans. Ceremonial magical systems had lots of structure and rules (because this belief system was based on the notion that the spiritual world was organized and populated in a series of hierarchies that increased in power the closer they were to the divine) but other belief systems didn't have that sort of structure at all. The image of the sorcerer in his spooky tower pouring over his ancient tomes and conjuring up spirits does make for fun fiction though, that's true.

So far as Doctor Strange and the Marvel magical world is concerned, a lot of the depiction of the magic in the stories is based on popular, fantasy depictions of high ceremonial magic as well as aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism and other structured ceremonial systems. At the same time, the Marvel magical universe also includes witchcraft, gods and demons, charms and hexes, and varying concepts of Hell and damnation. It's a mishmash of everything and none of it has anything to do with science.

Part of the reason why I believed magic and science were considered one and the same was because of this fabulous website:

https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki...Versus_Science

"Once upon a time in Real Life, Magic was indistinguishable from Science, and both went hand in hand with Religion. Over the course of history, they began to drift apart. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, Science was an independent field." I think there is some validity to this statement. I could see why in the good old days of the Dark Ages, people thought religion, magic and science were tied together. Also within the above website this sentence was written: "Interestingly enough, in pre-scientific times, all of the modern sciences, all forms of industry, and the very laws of nature itself were considered to be magic." The document it linked to has unfortunately been removed.

And wasn't there a joke made in that first Strange movie implying that Buddhists and Hindus who use mantras are "savages"? I think that comment was made in a conversation between Baron Mordo and Stephen over a wifi password. Obviously the MCU has a rather light-hearted view about the religious influences on magic in its universe.