originallutece | (no subject)

That IS how we originally got onto the subject, I believe. You needing a break from the lab, and wanting a game you could master in five days.

The science can follow naturally from there.

Do you imagine yourself as the subject or a co-experimenter?

Co-experimenter slash control group. You would be better suited as the subject, I believe.

Oh.

[Oh, that's . . . oh, yes, that's a far better idea, isn't it? It's just that she never imagines herself as anything but the scientist.]

You'll have to observe me closely. We can only do this once.

Naturally. You can count on me to take meticulous notes.

I've no doubt on your enthusiasm, nor your capability. But we'll have to go over what precisely you need to look for and make note of.

. . . you can still back out of this. I realize it's a bit of work.

I don't mind. It'll be something different and interesting to think about alongside my dissertation.

Though I do hope I'll earn a name credit when you publish the article.

Naturally. You'll be a co-author. Which will look rather good on your resume, given how many papers I've published.

A co-author? Really?

You'd be a vital part of the experiment, and I'll consult you on writing it, as it'll be your observations I'll be working off of. Add to the fact I'll be quoting your notes extensively . . . you'd be as much a part of this as I am.

...Something like that could get me noticed by all manner of respected individuals in the field.

You're talking about a paper that might very well prove to be the flagship of my career.

I don't know about that. But certainly it will add quite a bit of clout to your name when you eventually publish your own thesis.

If I can find a journal to publish it, to begin with.

Perhaps it's self-consciousness, but sometimes the more I stare at my theories the more I start to wonder if I'M even believing what I'm theorizing.

You'll find one.

Is your doubt coming from simply having reread it too many times, or something else?

That, and the fact that at times it starts to feel as though I'm proposing to explain magic with physics — or possibly to expand the definition of physics to include magic.

That would be foolish.

[There's a little pause, and then:]

Or at least, I certainly would have said so a month ago. Now . . .

There's no such thing as magic. I still firmly hold that as a belief. But there is still a vast amount we don't understand. An amount that's getting vaster by the day, thanks to this app. So if you want to propose solving certain scientific properties that before, have been attributed to magic . . . that's not so foolish.

Certainly you're in good company. Whether it's kitsune magic or the experience of suddenly shrinking to 15 cm, there's little shame in trying to explain the inexplicable.

As for your paper: I think if you frame it in that fashion, you'll be fine. Just don't make it seem as if you yourself believe in magic.

How does that saying go? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is virtually indistinguishable from magic"?

You're saying that all I'm doing is making it less advanced. Or rather, that I'm advancing our own understanding.

Precisely so.

You're studying legends and attempting to make sense of them via science. You're suggesting that while they're not inherently true, they also aren't entirely the product of someone's imagination. Which isn't unreasonable, and has been done in very limited effect: will-o'-the-wisps are the product of photon emissions, and so on.

Whereas kitsune magic is the result of a variety or wavelength of energy that we simply haven't identified yet.

Yes. And I imagine said wavelengths will vary, depending on what kind of magic we're talking about, but yes, that's the general idea.

. . . and keep in mind, one rejection doesn't make or break a theory. Simply because a journal doesn't believe in you doesn't mean your thesis is incorrect.