Could 'The Spark' be considered this world's manifestation of magic? Lets look at it. A Spark can do things that even a brilliant non-spark engineer couldn't accomplish. They can build complicated and powerful devices in mere hours. And they can give a mind to something made of clockwork. Also, even with a Spark's notes, it is hard for a non-spark (or even some other Sparks) to recreate the work. A Spark is what they are because they can 'infuse' their creations with their Power.

Of course, it doesn't matter in the long run, for the effect is the same, but it is something that ran through my mind.

--Donovan Ravenhull 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Blueprints (now very hard to find, I'm afraid) start out with an introduction that suggests that, as far as GG is concerned, Sparkiness and Magic are pretty close to the same thing, so I think your analysis is right. But the tone or character of the idea is still distinct from a typical fantasy fiction "magic," and very far from the typical D&D version. It's Mad Science! (this is my long-winded way of saying that I pretty much agree with you, but I don't like the idea of getting dogmatic about the Spark=magic thing, lest it get in the way of enjoying the Madness). -Evaneyreddeman 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Secret Blueprints" iz now available for download for a couple of kopecs at [Drive Thru Comics site]. Der Spark reminds very much of real-vorld genius [Nikola Tesla]. His theories of energy vere amazing! He said he could see der elektrons flowink like most uf hyu see vasser. Altgorl 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to think I could see photons flowing across a room whenever a light was turned on. Fortunately, some simple experimentation with non-incandescent lights cured me of that belief before I made too big a fool of myself. Tatter D 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it started out that way from a plot standpoint. However, the series seems too internally consistent and lacking in clear "deus ex machina" (even of the literal machina sort) for me to think that is all of it. Especially in the beginning, where the resentment between Silas Merlot and Dr. Beetle is laid out for all to see. I think there is a very real and compelling plot behind the series: the difference between untalented people who work hard their entire lives to produce what those who simply have a natural talent take for granted. Best of all, it's related to real-world science on a very deep level.

Normal people in the Girl Genius world must do what normal people must do in real life to produce scientific progress... a long, slow, tedious process of finding and cataloguing all the ways in which something doesn't work, in order to distinguish the precise circumstances in which it does work. They can, with great time and effort, learn to use Spark technology through simplified control devices, repair obvious damage like cracked pipes or snapped bolts, and sometimes even put together a couple bits of Spark technology to make it do something more useful to them, like turning a clank engine into a tractor. Sparks, on the other hand, short-circuit that process. They just KNOW, right from their first "break through," how to make amazing things, and the only experiments they need to perform is figuring out how to acquire the tools and minions to do it. As a result, they produce wonders that leave the most advanced non-Spark scientists scratching their heads in bewilderment, while at the same time being amazingly sloppy in their entire experimental process, substituting raw emotion and superstitious belief for any sort of thoroughness in their testing. They make stuff, and it works! Why bother even trying to understand why?

Honestly, I can think of nothing that would so utterly cripple technological progress across an entire planet, on a subtle yet irrevocable and self-perpetuating level, than the mere existance of Sparks. Why even bother trying to learn science, when you can just hook up with some Spark and get instant access to all sorts of amazing, albiet twisted, wonders? Just their presence would take science itself out of the hands of the popular majority, and concentrate it in the hands of the few Sparks who are ruthless enough to defend their power against others. In a way, Agatha represents much more than just a sympathetic protagonist. She is a Spark who, by being crippled yet still educated while growing up, has been forced to learn how to think critically, do real research, and see non-Sparks as friends or foes rather than tools and obstacles. She's not just the protagonist, but a transformational figure that will almost certainly change not just Europa, but the entire planet, for the better in the end. Tatter D 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Agatha is unique in her appreciation for science for its own sake. We have examples of all sorts of sparks, benevolent or otherwise. But with all the qualities you pointed out, she does set a very good example, and I agree that she's a transformational figure. She has an incredibly strong personality and is a serious force for all that's good and right. She's an awesome character. :) --mnenyver 17:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course she's not unique. Baron Wulfenbach himself displays quite a bit of critical thinking, such as when he asks Bang whether she might think he actually is The Other. But, human nature being what it is, it's likely that few Sparks would bother to develop those capabilities; the most binding chains of all are the ones we could easily throw off, but have no logical reason to make an effort to. In a sense, she's also in the right place at the right time, as all the students of Dr. Beetle display quite a bit more reason than any other Sparks that have been introduced since, not to mention the non-spark scientists he presumably also trained (and, sadly, was eventually betrayed by). He probably was, as Agatha declared, one of the most brilliant scientific minds in all Europa, all the more so because he spent his life trying to teach others to be the same. Tatter D 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Edited by Tatter D 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, now that I've thought about it some more, it's very likely that the Spark itself is actually an effort by an unknown force (possibly hostile, but more likely benevolent but careless) to cripple the human race by giving it too much knowledge too easily, much as people tend to cripple themselves with obesity when supplied with too much food for too little physical exertion. The physical form could be an enormous database system that uses aetheric broadcasts to directly feed knowledge into the minds of all those able to access it (a biometric/psychic password system perhaps). The system operates in both directions, not only supplying the sum total of all human scientific knowledge directly into the minds of Sparks, but also gathering any new scientific data from the minds of Sparks as they perform the occasional feats of research, processing it and feeding it back to them as new ideas and breakthroughs.

In a sense, the Spark is actually a metaphor for the Internet itself, possibly a vastly expanded and upgraded one that its users can't even understand any more. Europa may turn out to not be a steampunk version of history at all, but a post-apocalyptic future wherein the "Age of Aquarius" turned out to be a very dark age indeed. Tatter D 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody else has pointed out yet how my theory is completely full of crap, so I guess I'll just keep banging on as if someone had.

Stylistic and capability differences between Sparks are actually easily enough explained, even if the Spark does grant them the sum of all human knowledge. Just look at how we use the Internet we have right now. It's a modern-day Library of Alexandria, containing all the facts and fantasies, all the truths and lies, of millions of people all over the world. Depending on our skill at using it, we can tap into our more limited sum of human knowledge, but what does each of us actually use it for?

(I'll just pretend I didn't hear a million "Q Street" fans calling out at once.) We use it to see what we want to see.

Well, most of us do, and that's what counts. We seek out blogs that reaffirm the opinions we already hold, and dismiss those with which we disagree (often with much drama). We look for entertainment that we want to see, and learn very quickly how to avoid things that are entertaining to others but we ourselves find repulsive. And, of course, if my interests trend toward, say, video games, I'm going to spend most of my time checking out web sites with information on video games, and much less time checking out web sites that teach me how to build a house or knit a sweater.

Take that little quirk of human nature, attach it to a new version of the Internet so advanced that its users don't know how it works, and don't even NEED to know how it works, and what would you have? Differences in style resulting from differences in personality and interest, and differences in capability depending on how much the users themselves screen out because they reject as false certain aspects of the knowledge the Spark offers them, much as Father Grassi refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the phases of Venus with his own eyes. Tatter D 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. Sparks represent a small percentage of the population, and one that is not universally trusted. Think of military history... Occasionally one force or another would come up with a distinctive advantage over other groups or countries, but soon enough other countries would have found a way to overcome that advantage. Even the non-Sparky residents of Girl Genius's world seem more mechanically inclined and more scientifically aware. Why? They need to be. No one can afford to go to a spark every time the Fence of Expulsion starts letting people through. Nor can people in a small village rely on implements created by their own Spark to defend themselves against that same Spark, should he or she decide that they would make lovely experimental subjects. Now, of course, not everyone would try to defend themselves... but natural selection says that those who don't try will become fewer and fewer over time. The outcome you guys posit is one outcome, but a technological "arms race" is another, and a technological/scientific overflow effect a third. Zifna 19:18, 9 March 2009

"There are two kinds of geniuses, the "ordinary" and the "magicians." An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they have done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician's mind works. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest caliber." -- Mark Kac, who worked with Feynman at Cornell.

I think that quote really exemplifies the workings of the spark. The results of the spark all work, at least in the framework of the GG-verse, within the laws of science as you or I or a non-spark understand them. However, the method by which the spark reaches the result is beyond our ken. Surgoshan 3:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)