The Fetish Paradox, An Exciting New Theory -- Bonus snippet

The Fetish Paradox, An Exciting New Theory

By Sir Alistair Quiffly

The Familiarity Paradox is a well-known and established phenomenon, but only recently have researchers begun to ask: what about fetishes? After all, familiarity and fetishism share many similarities; so many, that familiarity could be said to be an adapted form of fetishism. If the bonds involved are so mechanically similar, should they not behave similarly? Why do fetishes not show the same well-established emotional bond effect as familiars?

Quite probably, they do.

In these modern times, mages treat fetishes as static tools of support, like a crowbar or walking stick. Fetishes are usually created with the expectation of a limited lifespan – ‘fetish burning’ is a practice that increases in popularity every year – and people with long-lasting fetishes treat them mostly as a symbol of their personal control over their spell, rather than have any care for their fetish. In practice, this is unproblematic – fetishes are, after all, static tools of support – but the lack of emotional attachment obscures the effect of said emotional attachment. Simply put: why are fetish links, despite being mechanically almost identical to familiarity links, not beholden to the same phenomenon of emotionally-dependent strength? Well, perhaps they are. Perhaps it is simply not noticeable, due to a lack of variation in the strength of said emotions.

Once upon a time, among certain specific lines of spell inheritance, the fetishisation of important object was an established practice. Family heirlooms, baby teeth, rings or pendants or chalices from one’s own graduation; these important pieces of one’s life were brought into one’s magical practice. The modern dominance of the Pit as a means of spell acquisition eroded much of these old traditions, raising the question of what we lost along the way. How many such practices, proven useful by generations of trial, were left by the wayside? We have all heard people reminisce about the old ways creating better spellcasters with better spell suitability, but what if it wasn’t better spell suitability, or the rose-tinted goggles of legend, that made them better casters? What if it was these little superstitions, things like creating fetishes with strong emotional bonds?

Surely this is a concept worthy of further research. Not only is it an important and fascinating topic in its own right, but by testing the emotional effects on these bonds on fetishes, we can perform better and more flexible experiments than we morally can with living familiars. Perhaps it is time to reintroduce some of the glamour, ritual and personal identity into the increasingly soulless modern practice of creating magic – after all, who knows how much we are losing by discounting useless superstitions, in a discipline born of superstition?

Special thanks to Dr Jessica Phalange for her insights, and for proposing the idea of the ‘fetish paradox’ in the first place.