[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Umm... no, not at all. "Magic"'s third and fourth noun definitions are things I hadn't thought of: the fourth is just a metaphor for the other definitions, and the third is also separate from "real magic" (as it's described in fantasy books where "real magic" is really real ), as either a metaphorical reference, homage, commercial exaggeration, or fraud pretending to really be "magic". So even though I didn't think of those, they only stem from and refer back to the "real thing" anyway.

And other than those two, every definition you just quoted for "magic" has the word "supernatural" built in, or "unaccountable" in the last case (which describes the same thing: can't be accounted for by the laws of nature).

First, the fourth definition is not "just a metaphor for the other definitions"... it refers to the numinous, that sense of wonder and a feeling of something sublime, supernal, something transcending our understanding (but not necessarily nature) that excites a feeling of awe, mystery, and/or reverence. It may or may not be supernatural in origin or effect. And, as Teresa has (once again) restated, the supernatural itself is not necessarily magic, save by the very loosest use of the term magic. Once again, "magic" is a systematized thing; the supernatural may be chaotic, systematic, or simply hinted or adumbrated without necessarily being explained. It may be as subtle as a sense of something, a delicate apprehension or feeling, an air of, etc.

This difference is evident from their very etymology: magic deriving from "magi" and supernatural simply being a compound of words that together mean "above nature [kind, disposition; part of the physical world]". Just going from the definitions given above, the difference should be evident, as definition 1 of "magic" specifically says "the art that purports to control ... by invoking the supernatural" (emphasis added). In other words, magic is the art, the supernatural is the means by which it effects its purported results. It is, if you prefer, the "field" which magic "taps into" -- much greater than the very tiny realm of magic just as the electromagnetic spectrum is much greater than our ability to manipulate (portions of) it through technology. To confuse the two would be like confusing the entire realm of art with the technique used to evoke a certain response.

Not that it would make any difference, especially if someone ELSE is in control, but describe some examples.

"How Love Came to Professor Guildea", by Robert S. Hichens
"The Ghosts", "The Highwayman", "The Doom of La Traviata", by Lord Dunsany
Jurgen, by James Branch Cabell
"Silence, A Fable", "Shadow, A Parable", by Edgar Allan Poe

(Most of these also involve the supernatural but not magic; all are examples of ghosts, gods, or supernatural forces not acting under their own volition -- in most cases they aren't under anyone's volition.)

That's a bad way to categorize something as magical or not. It means the very same thing becomes magical or unmagical just based on which of the people involved are and aren't in the story. It's like saying a story in which the characters' lives are strongly affected by politics still doesn't have politics in it if the politicians who made things that way aren't shown doing it.

All right... though I would have thought it would have been evident from the post, I'll clarify: by those within the world (or universe) of the story.