How Do You Like Your Magic?

[Alan]

“When I tried to review it, I found myself writing a whole thesis on the forms of magic in F/SF. So I stopped and tried again.”
Thus begins my review of The Black Prism by Brent Weeks. Some months later I ran into the same problem with Lichgates (Book 1 of the Grimoire Saga) by S M Boyce. . . so I thought it might be time for a discussion.

So how do you like your magic? In order to discuss this, I think we need a framework.

Firstly, the forms of magic. I am, of course, familiar with Clarke's Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) and the corresponding definition (sorry, can't remember who gets the credit for this) that if one unsupportable assumption or technology is used, then it is SF, but if you use two or more it is Fantasy. I think the situation is a bit more complicated than that.

So where shall I start? Firstly, let's begin with the simple stuff – wands and spells. To me, that is generally an indicator of work that is probably intended for a younger audience. Credit where due, the obvious example here is JK Rowling – and her work is pretty good (at least, the first 5 of the 7 were) but they were aimed mostly at readers the same age as the lead characters. The fact that they also appeal to much of the adult market is a good indicator of quality.

So: Simple magic has its place – magic worked largely by the use of wands and spells, but broadly 'do what you like, if you know the spell'. It has little restriction, few boundaries, few (if any) rules. From my point of view, fantasy using this sort of magic is going to have to have something extra to help it to hold my interest.

Then there are some other extremes – magic bounded by rules, and/or made rare, magic based on MindPowers (and/or the exercise of The Will), and magic dependent on supernatural beings – Gods, Demons, etc.

In these contexts, here are a few obvious examples to think about:-

Firstly, consider Mary Stewart's wonderful Arthurian books (four of them, beginning with The Crystal Cave – I must get round to reviewing this some time – 5 stars will not be enough!). Merlin, who is normally used as a sort of super-magician in Arthurian fantasies, is the narrator and principal character here - but he has a very restricted role. He has only a very few tricks – he has farsight and/or prophecy (when his God wishes it when and there is something important to see, not at his demand), and he does one great illusion (hiding a sword in a stone), and he can create fire – though for light, comfort and heat, not as a weapon - and Mary Stewart's use of these abilities is kept to a minimum – the magic is rare (and beautiful!). The story is carried by Merlin's (and others) human qualities, not his magic. The key here is that the magic is not super-powerful. Here are no miracles, apart from occasionally lighting a lantern by magic because he is in too much of a hurry to use flint, and one (just one) occasion where he takes a sluggish fire and boosts it a bit – but not to threaten or over-awe, he does it partly because it is a miserable cold night and partly because he needs to prove his identity. The farsight and prophecy? How much magic in that? Many ordinary people will claim similar experiences! And yet the books hold the reader with a power equivalent to the enchantments used by Merlin-type characters in many lesser books! And to me, that is a large part of what makes Mary Stewart's work so great.

A contrasting example – Julian May's Saga of the Exiles (starting with The Many-Coloured Land - my review here). This is something different. To start with, the effects are labelled as psionics (or metapsychics – just other terms for Mind-Powers) and the powers may be enhanced by technology – so the work is generally classed as SF rather than Fantasy. Nevertheless, the effects are as of magic – and it is magic without many rules or restrictions, simply by the exercise of The Will. By my own terms (above) that ought to classify it as juvenilia – but it isn't, this is full-blown adult fantasy (and I stress I mean adult as opposed to juvenile, not as a euphemism for porn).

And an example from the ‘supernatural beings’ category – can I take a look at some older work? Fred Saberhagen's Books Of Swords were set in what looks at first like a fairly standard demon-infested fantasy world – but then the reader finds that the world was created as an alternative to nuclear war, and the demons are the supernatural offspring of nuclear weapons. An odd twist to modern eyes, but it made a certain amount of sense to readers brought up in the days of the Cold War and the Four Minute Warning. Magic results from controlling these demons by strength of will. I liked these books when they were published, but in those days I just read them, I didn't try to analyse why I liked them, or what deeper meanings there might be in the work. I am not confident that I would still like it so much today, the magic is pretty well rule-free and the world faces other threats.

I suppose I ought to also go on a bit about magic beasts - dragons, unicorns, etc, but I'm going to leave those for the feedback (if any)

So now it is time for me to clarify my own preferences. I like to see magic that has some rules and restrictions – an author who just writes 'wands and spells' magic might be good – but might just be setting things up so that he (or she) has an easy escape from whatever puzzles they create for themselves. That's too easy, that is why such work is often best suited for a relatively young audience – and though that is not always true, it is something to watch out for. Magic resulting from or using technology often fades off into Science Fiction (which I also enjoy, but that’s a separate topic), and magic resulting from Gods and Demons often runs too close to ‘wands and spells’ or simple ‘exercise of will’, and can easily fade off into the ‘Horror’ or ‘Vampire’ categories that I normally choose to ignore.

On the other hand, magic that has strict rules and limitations looks weak – and the reader can then take pleasure in watching how the author finds ways around these limitations. Sometimes this is well done (see Mary Stewart, above) sometimes not (I don't intend to name poor examples at this stage).

And a further point – is it fair to always expect our fantasy authors to come up with something new? Or can we allow them to use themes already extant within our culture, without regarding them as hackneyed just because we have seen the framework before?

Example: Mudlark, by Chris Matthews. My review here The author uses magic structured within a framework of the four Greek Elements, Earth Air Fire and Water. These are pretty old ideas, but they can usefully form an easy way in to a story, so using them is not simply regurgitating old ideas – these provide a quick and easy background for the reader, to enable the author to develop other aspects of the story without further explanations.

I think the only really new magical idea that I have seen over the past couple of years was The Black Prism by Brent Weeks (my review here) – using coloured lights as a source of magic. New idea, (at least, new to me) and a fairly good read.

Other examples that have taken some old ideas but wrapped them up in some very new ways are:-
The Rook (Checquy Files #1) by Daniel O'Malley. (my review here) The supernatural talents described are mostly familiar, and the new ones stretched ‘suspension of disbelief’ a bit far, but this is worth reading as an example of a particular style of ‘magic’.
Hounded (Iron Druid Chronicles #1) by Kevin Hearne. (my review here) This is built on Celtic mythology (some very old ideas and characters there!) but some new tweaks are added, with occasional light touches of humour – a good example of how to build from a standard mythological framework.

OK, I have stated my own preferences and gone on long enough – would anyone else like to state their preferences (and explain them if possible!) or comment and/or suggest some further reading? Over to you.

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

I find interest in, pretty much, any magical form. I do, however, prefer more description as to the way it is done, rather then a simple.....it happened.

I've come to enjoy Brandon Sanderson's magic creations.
I've not read a lot of his work, but have been told that his books are each as descriptive with magic.


I disagree that wands and spells are more for juvenile readers.
They fall under a tool category, and one might continue that with swords, rings, staffs, cards (ie trumps in Roger Zelazny's Amber series)...etc.

Even spells go wrong, if said incorrectly.

As I read one of Zelazny's books now I come accross an example of his spell use.
From Blood of Amber.
"I summoned the Logrus and extended my tongue into its moving pattern. Then I spoke the spell, slowly and clearly, leaving out the four key words I had chosen to omit. The woods grew absolutely still about me as the words rang out. The spell hung before me like a crippled butterfly of sound and color, trapped within the synesthetic web of my personal vision of the Logrus, to come again when I summoned it, to be released when I uttered the four omitted words."

Just a couple of my thoughts.
Interesting topic.

[Alan]

Brenda ╰☆╮ wrote: "I disagree that wands and spells are more for juvenile readers.
They fall under a tool category, and one might continue that with swords, rings, staffs, cards (ie trumps in Roger Zelazny's Amber series)...etc."

Hi Brenda

I was writing of trends and indications rather than absolute rules - your idea of "tools" helps add some structure to my ideas - thanks.

I rather liked the Amber series - but I think it falls well within my earlier comment " . . sort of magic is going to have to have something extra . ." (though defining what that 'something extra' is, even in this one context is going to be a whole new ball game).

Someone else used cards . . WildCard series, can't remember who wrote it, must look it up . . . Ah, looked it up, George R Martin - that's probably why I haven't read it - perhaps he deserves another chance.

"Even spells go wrong, if said incorrectly."
And someone else I must look up - a dyslexic author having fun with applying his own reading/spelling problems to word-based magic . . . anyone remember the name? Fairly recent publication. . . . OK, don't bother, I googled him - Blake Charlton - not bad.

And I don't think I have read any Brandon Sanderson - perhaps I should. Where should I start?

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

Alan wrote: "Brenda ╰☆╮ wrote: "I disagree that wands and spells are more for juvenile readers.
They fall under a tool category, and one might continue that with swords, rings, staffs, cards (ie trumps in Roger...
Blake Charlton - not bad.

And I don't think I have read any Brandon Sanderson - perhaps I should. Where should I start? "

I've heard of the books about a dyslexic wizard, but haven't read them.....yet.
;)

As for Brandon Sanderson...I started with his latest The Way of Kings.
Possibly a mistake, as it is supposed to be the beginning of a 10 book series. Perhaps Mistborn Trilogy Boxed Set. I understand his books all take place within the same universe.
Warbreaker is a stand alone.
:) In case you don't want a long series intro.

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

Interesting that George R R Martin wrote a Wild Cards Series. You may be right, maybe I'll give him another chance. I became disenchanted with Game of Thrones.

[Alan]

Brenda ╰☆╮ wrote: "Warbreaker is a stand alone...."

Got the sample - part-way through it - looking good so far

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

:)

[Carole-Ann]

OK - I'm probably pleibean (sp?) in my acceptance of 'magic', but I've always taken the approach that each individual author has their own 'explanation' of the magic/k they use. I actually don't mind.

As long as the 'magic' fits the world they have built, I will not complain (that's always assuming the world-build is reasonable) :)

As for rules: that always depends on the theme/trope which the author uses. I'm probably not the right person to comment on 'magic' (since I'm OPEN to most everything); but as long as the author keeps to the 'rules' they've set up, then I'm happy.

Good discussion points!!

[[deleted user]]

Magic often troubles me. I tend to judge magic realistically which can lead to dissatisfaction. Wands, spells, wizards, vampires, and werewolves are usually too unbelievable, especially when flashy and powerful with flares of pyrotechnics.

It might be possible to write plausible magic, but I think it would work best when subtle and mysterious.

[Alan]

Greg wrote: "Magic often troubles me. I tend to judge magic realistically [ . . .] too unbelievable, especially when flashy and powerful with flares of pyrotechnics..."

Yes, I think you have problems similar to my own - flashy stuff strains the 'suspension of disbelief' rather a lot . . . but on the other hand, the subtlety - for example, the farsight and prophecy I mentioned in the first post, or magic that has some sort of rule and restriction, or justification (maybe lifting quantum-type effects into an otherwise Newtonian world) . . . these things are more interesting, yes?

[Ken]

I'm all for Clarke's position about unknown technology. However, got to disagree about '1 is SF, 2 or more is F'. I think it's SF if the technology doesn't exist today but could be scientifically supportable, and it's F if the technology doesn't exist at all.

I like magic when it is subtle, and follows its own rules. If a wizard can only carry 4 spells, no one in the book should cast 5. And to elaborate on subtle, I imply that textual clues which cause the reader to detect discord between the events as they happen and the pre-determined expectations of the characters are good examples of magic, to me.

Good: Her armor was only of light silken fabric, but the arrow appeared to be deflected from her chest. Could the haze have clouded my vision?

Bad: I could see she was casting a spell of deflection as he fired the shot; she shouted it defiantly as if the words themselves would stop his arrow.

[Alan]

Kenneth wrote "Good: [ . . . ]Bad:"

Nicely illustrated - Thanks!

[Charles]

I tend to prefer systems where magic always has some combination of cost and risk that keeps it from dominating daily life. If the cost/risk goes up in relationship to the power/impact of the spell, then it may be no big deal for a mage to light a torch with a word and a gesture; but if s/he is going to cast a spell that summons a gale to disable/sink the approaching enemy fleet, there needs to be a significant downside to doing so (or at least a very real risk of one).

Risks/costs might include sacrifices (with what is being sacrificed of greater and more personal value to the caster as power goes up), risk of something bad happening if the caster does something wrong, or the things from the "dungeon dimensions" sensing the casting and trying to break through to the caster, as just a few examples.

Even magical items can have costs/risks. A magic sword whose magic is simply that it never rusts nor needs sharpening need not have much/any risk, but then there's something much more powerful like Stormbringer with it's hunger for the lives of those the wielder cares about.

[Alan]

Hi Charles

Different slant on the question, but a very well-stated position and one I can largely agree with. Thanks

[[deleted user]]

I like magic in all it's forms when it is well thought out. Kurtz' Deryni magic is a combination of spells, tools and religious rituals and works wonderfully in the world she set them in. Likewise, Pratchett's magic systems on the Discworld are all over the place and appropriate for whatever story he's telling.

Some magic is more subtle as in Practical Magic and some is more all encompassing as in Turtledove's Darkness series. For me, the criteria for success is how well thought out it is and how well it fits into the story. I don't like magic so much when it feels like it was lifted out of a Dungeons and Dragons game or when it's so all powerful that if becomes a sort of deus ex machina.

I never cared for the Rowling's Hogwarts because the magic was a little silly for no real reason - but I do like the magic in Baum's Oz or Pratchett's Unseen University even though both are much sillier at times but they're supposed to be that way in the context of their stories .....

[Alan]

Geoffrey wrote: "I like magic in all it's forms when it is well thought out... I don't like magic so much when it feels like it was lifted out of a Dungeons and Dragons game... I never cared for the Rowling's Hogwarts because the magic was a little silly... but I do like the magic in [ ] Pratchett's Unseen University ... "
Broadly in agreement with you - I used to enjoy playing D&D (in pre-computer days!), but that sort of magic doesn't usually work well outside that context. Rowling's spells do at least encourage some awareness of latin roots (but that isn't really enough justification on its own).
And Pratchett is principally writing humour, I can forgive almost anything for humour of that quality!

[Micah]

Disclosures first: I don't read fantasy. Well, not any more. I love LotR/The Hobbit, but have hated every other fantasy work I've ever read. I also have a general aversion to mixing magic and technology (even in computer games and silly TV shows/movies).

All that being said, my 3 favorite magic systems in literature have been in LotR, the first three books (and only books I will ever read) of Game of Thrones series, and in China Miéville's Perdido Street Station.

In LotR the magic was 1) scarce, 2) mysterious, 3) subtle, or 4) spiritual in nature. It was all happening (for the most part) behind the scenes: the influence of the various rings, the seems-like-magic-but-maybe-it-isn't kind of things (elven cloaks, lembas bread, that kind of thing). The only overt use of "common" magic are seen in things like Gandalf's lighting of his staff, setting pine cones on fire to be thrown like hand grenades into an angry pack of wolves, etc. The really big overt magic was always of a spiritual nature, or at least being used by spiritual/demonic forces: ghost armies, ring wraith wails, Saron's roving eye, all that.

Now, as much as I grew to dislike George R. R. Martin's bloated and uneven Game of Thrones works, there was a lot to like in them as well (part of my vehement dislike of them comes from the fact that there was so much good in them that I thought he ended up spoiling in various ways...that's another story). His magic system was awesome. Magic was rare and when it was seen, the more potent it was, the more personal cost it extracted from the mage. That makes magic truly mysterious, scary and inspiring.

And then there's Perdido Street Station, which violated my "I don't like mixing magic and technology" edict. However, I didn't mind because his world was so other that it all worked seamlessly. Magic in this world is an offshoot of science...or is it the other way round? Summoning the ambassador from Hell, for example, at one time had involved incantations and blood sacrifice, but in the book's present that messy business had been superseded by the use of steam-punk-like technology. Brilliant. It worked, and it made his weird world all the weirder.

[Charles]

To the person whose message I just deleted: no self-promotion outside of the Authors' Forum, please.

[Ken]

great call on Perdido Street Station! It's perfectly well done.

[Christopher]

I tend to like regimented and structured magic systems, where magic is almost a scientific discipline. I read a book very long ago (whose name I unfortunately cannot remember) where the magic system was accessible to anyone who learned the process to using it.

I tend to dislike the gift-type magics, although I have read instances of the first that I disliked and instances of the second that I did like. A lot of it has to do with internal consistency, but my personal preference tends toward magic that anyone can use if they've got the stomach and the brains for it.

I did find the magic in Lois Bujold's The Curse of Chalion to be an interesting departure from the fantasy norm, however, and the first book is really fantastic to boot!

[Alan]

Christopher wrote: "I tend to like regimented and structured magic systems, ..."

Hey, I thought this thread had died - glad to hear from you, particularly since I agree with you. I won't condemn all the "spells and wands' stories, though I tend to regard them as underdeveloped - and I also won't condemn all "dragon and unicorn" works - but something structured makes the reader think a bit . . . and in some cases made the author think as well, which may be why there are not that many of them, and they are usually superior.
I haven't read Curse of Chalion - but I shall add it to my list.
Cheers

[Christopher]

Well, I'm happy to resurrect it! Zombie-post =)

I think that spells, wands, staves, potions and more can all be an integral part of a structured system. I like the way Jim Butcher treats magical implements in the Dresden Files, for instance. His magic is very well laid out, and Harry uses a staff and blasting rod (along with other things) as focus points, and some magic can be bottled (say, in a potion) for later.

In the Curse of Chalion, by the way, the only people who can use magic are those who are visited by the gods of the world, in one way or another. Very interesting twist on 'spiritual'-type magic.

[Alan]

Christopher wrote: "Well, I'm happy to resurrect it! Zombie-post =)

I think that spells, wands, staves, potions and more can all be an integral part of a structured system. I like the way Jim Butcher treats magical i..."

Hi Christopher

And thanks for your comments (above). I hadn't read Dresden Files or Chalion - so I got some samples, and then got the books! I have just reviewed Storm Front (Dresden Files #1) and I am getting stuck in to Chalion - looking good so far.

Thanks again

[[deleted user]]

The Chalion series is great in my opinion. I really enjoyed the religions built for this world.

Oh, and I'm moving this over to the 'Member Chat' area more for consistency sake than anything - even though it's been in General all along ....

[Ben]

Recently I have been enjoying the category of I suppose "is it or isnt it?" when it comes to magic. There seems to be a growing number of books in which the magical elements may be real or may be just due to a troubled mind. Books that play with this interesting ambiguity include:-

Among Others
Wizard of the Pigeons
The Drowning Girl

[Jordan]

Alan wrote: "“When I tried to review it, I found myself writing a whole thesis on the forms of magic in F/SF. So I stopped and tried again.”
Thus begins my review of The Black Prism by Brent Weeks. Some months..."

I suppose I would sum up how I like my magic as more transactional. No such thing as a free lunch, and all... you can't simply pop off a nuclear weapon-sized "spell" without consequences. I see magic as bending probabilities more than glitter falling from a faery wand. It keeps the magic from becoming plot spackle and lets it be much more interesting.

I have two different types of magic in my series which are at odds with each other: The probability based magic where the mages see the strands of probability overlaying "reality" and use their own power to manipulate them, and vivemancy, where the mages draw power from living creatures which they expend directly. But both have their consequences.

[Kevis]

I never really cared about magic systems in fantasy books, though I find some of them intriguing. It was something that mattered to me more in video games, since leveling up was important to defeating enemies.

I guess I'm still stuck in the old school "fairy tale" mode where magic simply happened and the how and why wasn't all that important. With that said, I do understand why it makes sense to have rules to govern magic in books. It takes all of the drama out of a fantasy book if the heroes can simply "Wish" their way out of a tight jam.

[Alan]

Ben wrote: "Recently I have been enjoying the category of I suppose "is it or isnt it?[Wizard of the Pigeons]..."

I read Wizard of the Pigeons a few years ago - an old friend recommended it. I wasn't much impressed at the time, but somehow I find I keep going back to odd parts of it - and a coupe of time I re-read almost the whole thing to refresh my memory. I have to acknowledge that there is some powerful writing in there!

[Alan]

Kevis wrote: "It was something that mattered to me more in video games, since leveling up was important to defeat..."
Sorry - video games definitely not my thing!

On the other hand "It takes all of the drama out of a fantasy books if the heroes can simply "Wish" their way out of a tight jam".... yes, I can definitely agree with that!

[Jordan]

Alan wrote: "Jordan wrote: "... But both have their consequences...."
OK, you have caught my interest, I will take a look - but not this week, I will be too busy trying to get another of my own books up on Ama..."

:-) Magic plays a smaller role in the first book than it does in the second of my series. If you read them, I hope you enjoy them.

[Jo]

It can be interesting how the reader brings his/her own expectations to the work.

A series with an herb elixir, and one that merely gives strength, keeps getting comments about the magic.

[T.C.]

Interesting subject.

I don't mind a bit of magic that is relatively unexplained if it is in a context where it doesn't need to be explained, i.e. if its use isn't the means by which everyone solves all of their problems, or if it is a relatively short work where that depth of explanation isn't required. I do need to feel that it is somehow something that has been worked at by the characters, though - something they have had to study and perfect, whatever its origins.

On the other hand, I like a good explanation, and I'm going to throw in the name of David Eddings there, because he did it in 2 completely different ways in his 2 series of books, and both of them 'worked'. In the Belgariad/Mallorean sets he describes it as 'the will and the word', drawing in 'will' from the surroundings and focussing it through a word, but in the Elenium/Tamuli sets he has it as a direct request for intervention from the relevant practitioner's particular god. Both explanations seem to me to be 'practical' and 'working' ones in their own contexts, and both require both 'talent' (in some way, though in the latter case it is more to do with the talent for getting the spells right) and study for those using them. That is fine by me - it requires 'suspension of disbelief' only in so far as accepting that the rules are different in that 'world', not going so far as having to accept either that there are no rules, or that the rules just don't apply to some people for no apparent reason.

I don't really mind what the explanation is, but for me the important thing is that, where there is an explanation, it has to be 'believable' in its own context. It's not good just saying 'because its magic so he can', unless the context of the book is a humorous one and its being done deliberately with that in mind (which is obviously a different kettle of fish altogether).

[Ken]

This is a very good point and one that I find overlooked in many fantasy writers' books.

Once the author has set up the 'rules' either implicitly or explicitly, breaking them causes the 'realness' of the world to shatter. The mechanisms established for magic and other things should remain consistent if they are world-intrinsic.

[Alan]

Hi Kevin and T
Thanks for these comments - and may I say how much I agree!

[Jason]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought of Brent Weeks as well. He does do a great job of adding intricacy and detail to the fantasy aspects of his books. I really need to get around to reading the sequel to Way of Shadows.

[Alan]

Hi Jason
As I often do, I followed the links to your profile and further . . .
That cover for Scars is quite something! Who did it? And maybe it should be brought to the attention of the current discussion on covers at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[D.W.]

I like my magic to have a good grounding.