Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Ah, magic. Probably the most flexible concept in myth and fiction. There is virtually an infinite number of ways to approach the basic idea of "do the impossible with one's will". But which ones do we like?

Personally, I always prefer the supernatural as mysterious. And if there official Good Magic I want it to be awe-inspiring, and if there's official Evil Magic I want it to be honestly creepy and disturbing; ie beyond normal human evil.

It's like the problem horror movies encountered in the 90's. Once the monster can be shown it loses much of its impact. Keeping it in the darkness and only giving us hints is much more effective.

Magic always loses something to me when it's
A: Flashy and colourful
B: Common in the setting (a butcher hires a mage to keep his meat cool, a housewife buys enchanted shoes to keep hubby's feet dry)
C: On constant display.

In my own writings I never go into scientific detail of how evil sorcery works, and while I occasionally show things from the perspective of characters who know more than most I keep to the Lovecraft idea that some things are simply unknowable.

What about you folks?

I feel that science is magic to the uninitiated and uneducated mind.

I like for there to be a system. Too many movies and books just sort of throw it in all haphazardly and hope for the best. I need:

1. Only certain people can wield it OR
2. Lots of people can wield it, BUT certain people can do certain things (and other people can do other things)
3. There needs to be some sort of balance. Like you can do magic, but it takes a toll on your body, or each person only has a certain amount of magic, and once you use it up- it's gone.
4. There needs to be some sort of system. Magic words, wand waving, potions and spells are fine, but they need limitations and definite structure.

I like there to be some rules, a system of some kind, natural laws it follows like gravity or electricity - BUT! I don't want to be given all those rules and regulations and laws and specifics. It's enough to know they're there, and to get little bits that make sense in context without tons of explanations and training montages.

Michele wrote: "I like there to be some rules, a system of some kind, natural laws it follows like gravity or electricity - BUT! I don't want to be given all those rules and regulations and laws and specifics. It'..."

Yeah.

Early on in creating my setting I decided "No teleportation, no shapeshifting", because those circumvent so many common problems. It's never outright STATED anywhere, but it's a rule I keep in the background.

I hate it when characters forget their powers for the sake of creating a problem for them. It's one reason I think creating a set of magic powers is a very delicate process a lot of thought has to be put into.

·¡±ôí wrote: "Michele wrote: "I like there to be some rules, a system of some kind, natural laws it follows like gravity or electricity - BUT! I don't want to be given all those rules and regulations and laws an..."

I saw GRRM on a book tour once. He said magic is like spice- a sprinkle is great, but if you use too much then it gets distracting. I think about that quote every time I read a book in which the magic is so powerful that it undermines the reality of the setting.

One of my favorite magic scenes is near the beginning of The Worm Ouroboros (Illustrated Edition) when the main necromancer is casting a spell. He goes up to his lab and works his butt off- he's mixing, he's pouring, he's chanting, he's focusing, he's sweating and straining, because, dang, sorcery is hard! I feel like if you're defying the law of conservation of energy, it should at least be difficult.

Phil wrote: "I saw GRRM on a book tour once. He said magic is like spice- a sprinkle is great, but if you use too much then it gets distracting. I think about that quote every time I read a book in which the magic is so powerful that it undermines the reality of the setting.."

That's a good quote, and sums up my feelings on the subject well.

One of the things I liked so much about The Force Awakens was that it eschewed the really over-the-top uses of the Force the prequels went for. The climactic lightsaber fight felt much more tense, and dignified, than the Lucas wire-fu nonsense. And when the hero starts to figure this power out, in various small ways, it actually felt impressive and mystical.

Fair dinkum, I swear sometimes authors make it so complicated they can't keep up with their own rules/laws/setup! For example, take the very famous and common HP series. I have a question for you. If the folks in Chamber of Secrets are petrified...how did they get the Mandrake potion in 'em to un-petrify them? Never made sense to me.

Stick to your own rules, I say.

Amelia wrote: "For example, take the very famous and common HP series. I have a question for you. If the folks in Chamber of Secrets are petrified...how did they get the Mandrake potion in 'em to un-petrify them? Never made sense to me."

That didn't bother me with the people as much as it did with Nearly Headless Nick. After all- you can trickle water into a person's mouth. And one would assume it would be open at least a bit, due to being shocked/scared, and that the potion would unpetrify as it trickled down. But a ghost doesn't eat or drink. so how can the mandrake potion restore HIM?

Further proof that the Mandrake potion was a crap plan, Rowling!

:)

I thought the potion caused a magical chemical reaction - just pour or spray it on the surface - though why Nearly Headless Nick had any physical substance to turn to stone in the first place, no idea.

Ah, misting...I hadn't thought of misting the petrified. I can accept that!

Nick, yes, I'd love to hear someone find a solution to that one. :)

I like when only few to only one person can use it. I never like novels with entire magic schools and wizards available around every corner.

I also like when rules are established by the writer to keep the invincible characters away.

I found the way magic was depicted in the name of the wind (by Patrick Rothfuss) was so well explained that it took the"magic"out of it, (even though I love the book despite this) it was more like their version of science - which only appears magical to those who are ignorant. I prefer the magic to be more mystical, where the magic taps into some larger force rather than just having a localised effect, the type of magic that just gives someone extra skills or turning objects into something else seems a bit superficial (like a magic trick) and a bit of an add on rather than something embedded into the whole of the world, in Tolkien the magic pervades the whole world and is also much more subtle.

Hmmm, hadn't thought of it that way, but I see what you're saying (re: Rothfuss). Yeah, I'd agree that (although I did enjoy those books) I prefer my magic a bit more "magical", less science-ish.

I loathe magic tricks and magicians...well, maybe not Chris Angel. But, if it's not him, no thank you.

Coming up with a magic system for my books was the most difficult aspect for me. I can accept a wide range of magic systems as long as the author remains consistent and true to his or her design. Science as magic can be quite interesting. Magical creatures or species works for me. Even the typical use a focus to channel magic in the world works fine. I am not that fussy so long as it is portrayed well. For me, I used something similar to animism, which I suppose is a world magic model. I think ultimately magic should be fun for both writer and reader and not overdone. I like Phil's GRRM quote about magic and spice. I think that is a great way of putting it.

I started a thread on a similar topic some time ago - look here. I strongly suspect it is not the only similar thread on Gooreads - there are now so many threads running it is easy to get lost!
And while you are deciding whether to look there or not, can I say that I strongly agree with
Eli (Magic always loses something to me when it's Flashy and colourful)
Natalie (There needs to be some sort of system. Magic words, wand waving, potions and spells are fine, but they need limitations and definite structure)
Phil, quoting GRRM (magic is like spice- a sprinkle is great, but if you use too much then it gets distracting.)
And JW (Coming up with a magic system for my books was the most difficult aspect for me). I solved this by defaulting to English Mediaeval sympathetic magic - Like to Like and Part to Whole. I think it worked. (Minor self promotion - see )

Ah, that's where Patrick Rothfuss must have got his magic system, its called sympathy and involves making connections between two similar objects!

Though I didn't enjoy the book a lot (too much name-dropping of SF/F authors for the sake of name-dropping, not enough actual plot), Among Others has an interesting "magic" system: the magic is undetectable, it makes things happen like coincidences, to the point that the character wonders if they really happen because of the magic.

As Bryan said, magic in Walton's Among Others is very subtle, and not worked by any of the actual characters involved. It's main character & narrator, Mori, sees fairies, and occasionally they trade favors: she helps them work some fairy magic and they help do little things for her, though it all seems quite non-magical. For example, the fairies want to do something about a factory that's polluting their bog, so they have Mori & her sister sneak out one night and drop something in the water. Two days later, there is a newspaper article about a fire at the factory that forced it to close. No fireballs, nothing inexplicable.

Unlike Bryan, I really liked Among Others. Honestly, the magic is a very tiny part of the story, which is really thin on its fantasy plot.

It is a very SF-insider book. It's a character study of Mori, a lonely teenage SF fan in the 1970's at a boarding school. She finds her Karass (term from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle) in a local library sci-fi book club, and her narration is sprinkled with discussion of science fiction books. It would have been my choice for the Hugo, but I thought it worked charmingly.


Speaking of magic that's very subtle, there was an interesting short story on the Nebula Award shortlist last year, Tom Crosshill's "The Magician and Laplace's Demon". In it, magicians simply get to choose among alternate realities to select one in which a certain event happens, and is unable to convince an AI that "magic" is real. (We had a discussion of it last year and you can read it for free . It's also in the The Long List Anthology: More Stories From the Hugo Award Nomination List that will be our anthology discussion topic in February.)

I really like authors and stories that describe what it's like to work magic, how it is cast, not the "system" or "rules" so much (though those help) but rather the sensations/mechanisms felt by the mage zirself.

That would require either the mage be the point of view character or the author using omniscient narration.

Some examples:

In Roger Zelazny's Changeling & Madwand, the wizard "sees" the world full of strings and threads and bands which he can tug on or push or wiggle to magically affect the objects they are attached to.

His Amber novels have people who can travel to alternate realities. Instead of just having them blank and wrinkle of his nose to make the transition, Zelazny describes how they gradually travel through a series of minor alterations to reach the desired alternate dimension.

I thought Robert Jordan did a good job in his Wheel of Time opus describing "channeling" of the One Power and its various elemental flavors, combining them in "weaves" to achieve desired effects.

Sanderson's Mistborn has a decent description of using various metals for specific effects, though there the available actions are strictly limited (push, pull, strength, soothe, sense,...) and mostly enhance familiar effects.

(I didn't, however, need Sanderson to go to all the detailed diagrams of The Rithmatist, which began to feel like a textbook rather than a novel.)

G33z3r wrote: "Unlike Bryan, I really liked Among Others. Honestly, the magic is a very tiny part of the story, which is really thin on its fantasy plot.

It is a very SF-insider book. It's a character study of Mori, a lonely teenage SF fan in the 1970's at a boarding school. She finds her Karass (term from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle) in a local library sci-fi book club, and her narration is sprinkled with discussion of science fiction books. It would have been my choice for the Hugo, but I thought it worked charmingly."

I thought it started off well, with the world and the character's backstory described progressively and some nice SF references, but as it dragged on it turned into a succession of "today I've read [famous SF/F book I assume the author read as a teen]". It feels somehow very autobiographical, I'll give her points for that.
My biggest grip is that there's no actual plot besides that. I kept expecting the supernatural/magical stuff (even the evil mom) to be revealed as an exaggeration/invention of a fertile teenage mind fed with a lot of SF/F, perhaps set off by her twin sister's death, but there wasn't even that in the way of plot.

Anyway, I like GRRM's concept of magic which is, I suspect, part of why A song of ice and fire/Game of thrones is successful among people who don't usually read/watch fantasy.

Also, it's not a book but I love Avatar (The last airbender/The legend of Korra)'s magic system, which is based on the 4 elements that some people can manipulate through spirituality and training.

I personally hate the special little snowflake magic where arbitrary people are capable of magic and no one else is.

Other than that, you need to have rules enough to convince me that magic can solve the problems it does and not more extensive problems that it doesn't.

I also note that putting the magic in the hands of the point-of-view characters really limits the sense of wonder you can draw out of it.

Mary wrote: "I also note that putting the magic in the hands of the point-of-view characters really limits the sense of wonder you can draw out of it. ..."
Interesting point - and broadly speaking, I agree with you.
Finding exceptions to your rule, or arguments against it has turned out quite difficult. Best examples I can find are some characters from Zelazny - see The Changeling, and Dilvish the Damned. Neither are good enough to greatly weaken your point, though they do weaken it slightly.
Also - consider Wizard of the Pigeons by Megan Lindstrom. Not strictly a POV lead character, but close - and the magic is not the sort of magic readers normally think of. In this, the reader is left unsure how much is actually magic as opposed to the effect of the character's own psychological problems.
So yes, broad agreement - but with some caveats!

Two thoughts:
1) If the author doesn't bother to explain the magic system, you run the very big risk of simply leaving the reader in the dark with a literal

2) Wouldn't you need to have a pretty good grasp of what the characters are NOT able to do if you want to write a decent magic duel (that goes beyond boring "flash-flash-flash-one is stronger/one runs out of magic juice/third party or object interferes")?

I mean: if you don't know the way the magic system works, you can't appreciate novel uses, think up new possibilities yourself and admire the author when s/he actually pulls the trigger on that possibility?
Like a detective story with only reveals and no clues or foreshadowing?

Of course, not all authors are inclined to do advanced magic, and if the only way you use magic is random hand-waving, you shouldn't waste my time by cooking up a long-winded and irrelevant explanation.
On the other hand, IF the author is actually ambitious about using the magic system as part of the plot or action, I'd prefer a long info-dump with proper explanations, rather than weak or insufficient hints to what everybody in the book already know scattered throughout a book.

Niels wrote: "Two thoughts:
1) If the author doesn't bother to explain the magic system, you run the very big risk of simply leaving the reader in the dark with a literal "A wizard did it""

You can sometimes get away with it IF
1. The viewpoint characters do not do the magic, and
2. There are non-magical reasons why you can not call on the magic. From as simple as the magic is wild, spontaneous, and out of human control, to the wizard charges an arm and a leg for anything.

Alan wrote: "Mary wrote: "I also note that putting the magic in the hands of the point-of-view characters really limits the sense of wonder you can draw out of it. ..."
Interesting point - and broadly speaking,..."

Well, it's just a limit, it's not a complete preventation. for instance, two of the most enchanting moments in Harry Potter are the two deer Patronuses -- and while the doe in the woods was not Harry's casting, the stag in Prisoner was, and was wonderful.

Mary wrote: "You can sometimes get away with it IF
1. The viewpoint characters do not do the magic, and
2. There are non-magical reasons why you can not call on the magic. From as simple as the magic is wild, spontaneous, and out of human control, to the wizard charges an arm and a leg for anything."

It can be done well, but both (and especially 2.) invite sloppy writing and plot-induced weaksauce, because it is too easy for the author to oscilate between "magic doesn't want to come out and play today" and "deux ex magic" for cheap tension and easy resolves (think Dan Brown with magic).