Fantasy Book Club discussion
General fantasy discussions
>
How do you like your magic?
date
newest »
newest »
I like magic that isn't limitless - there are consequences and prices to be paid for it. Good examples are:Mistborn: The Final Empire
Warbreaker
The Outstretched Shadow
and, lets not forget The Fionavar Tapestry
I'm sure that there are dozens of others, but I these are among my all time favorites!
Hmm, good points. First of all, I hate the word wizard. Maybe because since I've been little the word's been associated with white-bearded men in pointy hats. Sounds close to whiz too. So altogether lame. I prefer they be called something else. Mage or anything else will do. I don't know if anyone else has that quibble.I do like the magic users to actually wield magic. Otherwise, it seems simply tacked on to a character to make an impression, although I could see a very powerful person not using their power that often. I see what you mean though, Chris, about magic becoming commonplace, and I tend to agree, it has to be limited, but I don't mind if a sizable portion of the population has it, even better if there are different degrees and types.
I really like in Robin Hobb's worlds that she's framed magic in real world contexts, with prejudices against certain kinds, abuses, etc. They're also natural magics, like the Wit, which feels to the user like a web connecting creatures. Same with Melanie Rawn. I thought her moon- and sunrunners were quite creative. I liked that magic was so established in the world, politics incorporated it. And religion in her other books. And that the power came from within the body of energy inside people. More natural in that respect too.
As far as prices to be paid for magic, I agree with Laurel, except I like the consequences to be social sanctions also (when that can be addressed in a more than superficial fashion and in more than one dimension), as in Hobb's world again, where prejudice was very deeply embedded in people and could lead to violence. If that can't be accomplished, physical consequences will do, as long as that's approached in a mature (non-exaggerated) fashion too.
I'll take it any which way.. One thing that drives me crazy though - it seems like, in a large number of books that I've read, there is a common theme with the magic. The "bad guys" can use it whenever wherever they want, no problems. But the "good guys" have to refrain, because if/when they do use it, the baddies will instantly know where they are an will be able to find them. It annoys me.. The good guys really need to get on top of this thing, organize some sort of bad guy tracking union, so that they can be on equal ground with them. Just saying :-)
Laurel wrote: "I like magic that isn't limitless - there are consequences and prices to be paid for it. Good examples are:Mistborn: The Final Empire
Warbreaker
[book:The Outstretche..."
Chris & Laurel,
I, too, prefer magic that is gained at some price and has limits. I couldn't help noticing the correspondence to that in Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow series, where the protagonist ALWAYS seems to pay a price for using his magical skills and even the seemingly omnipotent Fellowship Sorcerers must obey the "Laws of Major Balance" and sometimes get killed (discorporated) or nearly so, by the strictures and demands of their magic on their bodies, minds, and souls. Magical Accountability!
I’m of the mind that yes, magic should cost something. Even if it’s just fatigue, it puts magic users on par with the strictly melee sort. One thing that will cause an instant eye-roll of annoyance from me are books with main characters who are ‘special little snowflakes’ with an innate gift for magic and go on to discover they are some super-powerful mage type without it having cost them anything in the process. Not only do I see that as poor character development, but where’s the thrill and excitement in a character like that? There needs to be a balance to risk/reward. Magic needs to cost the magic-user something just as executing a sword form costs the swordsman something.
For "magic at a cost" also ref: Raistlin from the Dragonlance series.
I don't really think about it that way. I like fantasy and sometimes a world works well with very little magic and if the novel works then that's great. The Deed of Paksenarrion is probably one of my top 5 favorite books and magic is very much in the background. We meet a wizard early one etc. but on the whole the magic aspects are tied in with what I suppose (for the gamers in the audience) the "clerical" side of things, evil clerics, good clerics and of course the best depiction of a paladin I've seen done in fiction. But then you turn around to Jim Butcher's Codex Alera and even more his Harry Dresden books (more of my all time favorites) and magic becomes central to the story. I guess I like a good handling of a magic system, The Recluse novels Law vs. Chaos for example, but I usually don't go looking for a book that is either heavy or light on magic. I just want it to work in the context of the novel or series.
I love magic and I prefer it if it's realistic, but it's not necessary for a fantasy book to have magic for me to enjoy it. There should be a reason for it being there, not just to add some sparkle to the book.
I like my fantasy with a lot of magic because I come to fantasy from super hero comic books. I am always looking from some version of the super hero in fantasy and sci fi. In sci fi proper, it's harder to find it, but thank the powers that be for cyborgs and telepaths and bioengineered humans. Anyhow, where fantasy is concerned, I like detailed descriptions of how the magic works. I am currently reading Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn; I love the details of how metal-linked magic works and the fact that magic allows for physical enhancements such as enhanced strength and vitality.
I'll take it any way I can get it. It depends on the framework of the story, and the level of internal consistency. It does bother me when magic, erm, magically saves the day - unless there's a good reason for it. Too often it comes across as a sort of deus ex machina.
I like for the magic to have some foundation or physical/scientific basis behind it. It's interesting to see that played out. I think magic should have a cost to the user since it is basically employing energy. I will say that I get disappointed when I read a fantasy book and there's very little magic. That's why I read fantasy.
I like a physical/scientific basis too. :D
Magic should have a cost. It should be achievable, but only to a select few. Is it fair who can attain it? Probably not.For magic at a cost, well, check out C.S. Freidman's Magister Trilogy.
I believe in energy's which flow in the natural world, but can they be tapped... and a what price.
(There are, of course, many other awesome narratives and depictions of magic)
For me, magic should have a life of its own and be a bit slippery to handle, unpredictable. I like the way it "seeps" out of the books in the magical library in the Discworld books and glows in the dark. In Harry Potter the magic has limits that make spells expire at inconvenient times and sometimes turn out wrong or overpower an unwary user. I like both of these images. Also the notion that there are places where magic happens whether people are ready for it or not, like crystal caves, stone circles, and borderlands.
I like magic which has rules and consequences. That the users may not understand or may make mistakes is, of course, just fine.
As a writer, I have issues with magic. It's soooo easy to use magic as an end-runaround or create characters that are obscenely powerful. So I tend to move my magic system toward more of something less like the old "wizardly" magic and more toward a "special ability" sort. This creates groups and limitations and is an obvious precursor to societal stigma. This keeps things a bit more balanced. As a reader:
While I do love my old beat up Forgotten Realms novels, I hated that anyone could realy be a mage and that they had to have ridiculous spell components handy at any given time. I agree that Mistborn was superbly done and also liked Janny's handling of magic. Limitations, societal stigma, and costs... all very important.
In my books, the hero has magical abilities, but they were imposed on him, activated by means of Song, and he started out a Bard, so he's very conflicted about using spells. Not to mention that in the place where he lives they recently had the Great Sorcerous War and people are less than thrilled with magic use. Part of his job is to rehabilitate magic's image.I don't have a preference for how it works, but whatever rules for magic there are, the author should stick to them, and preferably not make the magic the solution for everything.
I like magic to have painful consequences for the caster. In my novel, the bad guy and good guy both suffer when they use it. My hero actually passes out the first time (and barfs on himself). But then there's a character who's a conduit, which tips the balance in favor of whoever taps into her gift first.
Viktoria, don't you carry around shards of bone, powdered metal...possibly a few vials of various bloods, ichors, and other bodily fluids from a selection of creatures? I thought everyone did!?
Magic also should have emotional consequences too, like in my favorite books the Warriors of Alavna series by N.M. Browne and Marianne Curley’s books. Magic is wild, corrupting and addicting, making it hard to choose between the power of magic and doing what is right. Also I always like the reluctant hero type who stumbles over abilities like in the book The Innocent Mage by Karen Miller. Magic just works better when characters have different unique abilities that make them great in their own way, but also shows how magic is not confined just to rules and the human will.
Mike wrote: "Viktoria, don't you carry around shards of bone, powdered metal...possibly a few vials of various bloods, ichors, and other bodily fluids from a selection of creatures? I thought everyone did!?"I used to but a bloody displacer beast ate my bag of holding since that damn dwarf left his meatpie in it and then left it OUT while we were camping one night. And the only other magic we had came from the gnome illusionist and well... gnome illusionists are about as handy as a deaf djinni. I haven't been able to find dracolich bone dust OR an eye from a beholder willingly given on a full moon under an ash tree in midwinter to replenish my stock. Crazy luck huh?
Ya, I guess that sort of thing can be an "Owlbear" now that I think of it. Being a paladin all I have to do is...hit stuff with my huge two-handed Holy Sword. Maybe I can find you some ash from a lightening blasted oak to make ink from for your spell book?
Mike wrote: "Ya, I guess that sort of thing can be an "Owlbear" now that I think of it. Being a paladin all I have to do is...hit stuff with my huge two-handed Holy Sword. Maybe I can find you some ash from a l..."lol. Pallys are so over-powered.
I guess I do see a comparison of sorts here... is magic applied like a Paladin in WOW (i.e. all powerful, no limitations), as a solution to everything, or utilized more like a...
(help me out here)
a) weak spirited mage
b) rogue, or wetboy (been reading Brent Weeks)
c) priest... which brings to mind something else which I don't think has been mentioned, but I like when magic has two (or more) sides (or elements) and the user must choose, create or destroy, heal or hurt, defense or offense (fire, earth, etc). Also, when magic is bound in such a manner that it can only be used for distinct purposes.
I'm a D&D player...table top and also some of the older PC RPGs... a paladin in D&D is basically a fighter with some extra "perks" as a Defender of the Faith type, healing, turn undead 3 levels below a priest...maybe ask light...smite evil. If you have a Holy Sword evil magic cast by a spell caster of your level or less will probably fail within 10 feet of you. Then at (if I remember this off the top of my head) at 8th level you can cast some 1st level priest spells, at 9th you can cast 2nd level and so on.Started DMing back in 1978 and have played ever since as DM or player, the paladin is the character I play most often as a player. Some people prefer rogues (read thieves), some like magic users, etc, I like the paladin. I'm DMing a 2edition game now. I never cared much for 3rd edition, 3.5 was next and when i bought the 4th edition books I disliked it. Went back to 2nd. I've got several players handbooks I can use as loners etc.
WOW. (not World of Warcraft, just "wow") I do go on. Just proved I'm a Dungeons and Dragons geek...or is that a nerd? ;) LOL
By the way... While a paladin has no relation to a "wet boy" I loved the Night Angel trilogy.
Mike wrote: "I'm a D&D player...table top and also some of the older PC RPGs... a paladin in D&D is basically a fighter with some extra "perks" as a Defender of the Faith type, healing, turn undead 3 levels bel..."Thanks for clarifying D&D geek/nerd... neither of which is a bad thing. =)
Just (like a minute ago) finished Book 1, of the Night Angel Trilogy. Very good, but I still have so many questions and...!@#$! ...guess I'll have to start Book 2.
I'm off to bed (up early to go to church (almost 2:00 AM I want to up by no later than 8:30...still living like I'm a kid, sheesh!). I just finished the 2nd book in Modesitt's Imager series, couldn't quit. I've got the third ordered from the library... hate to wait on it though. I bought the Night Angel trilogy in an omnibus edition, so when I read it, I thought of it as one book, the same way I read The Deed of Paksenarrion.Well, enjoy Night Angel. I'm sure you will.
Viktoria - roflol @ gnome & dwarf problems. Yeah, my magician in AD&D wasted a lot of time because the DM wouldn't take my word for it that she had all her stuff ready when she wanted to cast a spell. And we had a thief in the party and you know how that goes. He liked shiny things. We palmed off a cursed dagger on him.
My "crew" (I'm DMing again) lost their Cleric and Ranger last game session...both well into 6th level. They're both considering starting thieves next session... one may have switched to ranger now though and the other has moved to Bard (haven't had a well played Bard in a long time). Next game session will probably have a lot of "roll-up" paper work time. Spell caster is okay though, he got away (LOL), when they blundered. Just be sure you "state" things for the DM. Have you read any of the D&D themed novels where they sort of go into the magic system? I changed some things for my players to make it easier and not so "picayunish".
From Mike: Have you read any of the D&D themed novels where they sort of go into the magic system? At Mike: Like???
btw, you guys are really making me feel out of the loop. =)
Some of them are considered "older"... but The Dragon Lance books come to mind... R.A. Salvatore has written several, The Icewind Dale Trilogy, or the Dark Elf Trilogy. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman wrote a several books. Some of them have a D&D tie in. There are quite a few. There are some Forgotten Realms novels, Ed Greenwood is another fair writer.Have you run across any of them? My daughter was always a reader, but my son wasn't. Some of these are how I got him interested in reading. There are some fairly good "brain candy" reads among them. :)
Hey, thanks for the list.Been meaning to read R.A. Salvatore so I can learn about this character Dritz. I have read the Weis and Hickman Dragonlance:Chronicles and Legends trilogies, and some of the others. Heard about Forgotten Realms...
They're not exactly "great literature, but they can be fun... well some are a little "heavy" to call fun, lost characters. But they can be good brain-candy reads. And I have nooooo problem with brain candy.
I LOVE the whole, other world, adventure concept. And, of course, the characters get a fun 'ability'. But the truth is, i'll take anything so long that it is full imagination and originality.
You'd be right at home in the Discworld.
Mike wrote: "They're not exactly "great literature, but they can be fun... well some are a little "heavy" to call fun, lost characters. But they can be good brain-candy reads. And I have nooooo problem with bra..."Hi Mike - I have Salvatore's Legend of Drizzt trilogy on my bookshelf that I plan to read... are you saying that Drizzt is brain-candy? I've no problem with that, but just wanted to set my expectations.
By brain candy I usually mean any read (usually light, but there are degrees of "light") that isn't setting it's sights on convincing me of a philosophical point, or trying to improve, change, or educate me. Sometimes they do these things, but usually on a very low key level. I'd call all the Forgotten Realms books "brain candy"..but then the bulk of my reading IS brain candy. I have nothing against good brain candy. In other words, it's meant to entertain and be enjoyable. I suppose you could also call it "brain fast food" or "a brain Big Mac" or something (LOL) whatever you might eat simply because "you like it".Yes, please forgive me Jack LaLanne, I know you don't eat anything, "because you like it". :)
Heck I don't. And I read things just because I like 'em too. But I'm careful what I put in my brain just like I'm careful what I put in my mouth, because what I really like is stuff that's gonna make me feel good now and NOT sick later. So, yeah, I think just one chocolate (totally fun story where the good guys win) is better than oatmeal 3x a day (boring predictable pretentiously badly written stories without even internal consistency).
Mike wrote: "By brain candy I usually mean any read (usually light, but there are degrees of "light") that isn't setting it's sights on convincing me of a philosophical point, or trying to improve, change, or e..."Thanks for the clarification Mike. I agree, not everything we read has to be wholesome all-grain organic brain food :) Regarding Legend of Drizzt, it seems a lot of people like the series so I'm looking forward to it as a future read.
Also, the original thread is about whether magic is good in a story so let me chime in my two cents. If I'm supposed to feel that a character is in real danger in the story, the author will need to do two things regarding magic: (1) establish ground rules on how magic works so it can't leaned on as a cop-out solution, and (2) understand that using magic comes at a cost, either mental, physical, and/or spiritual price by the user (along the lines of kinetic energy-potential energy being conserved). I'm just echoing points already made in this thread.
I like magic that is more the David Eddings versian. Say what you like about his writing on the negative side, but to me he did 2 things really well in his major series. 1) Awesome characters. 2)Fairly simple take on magic. The Will in the word. I like when magic takes your own strength and there are consequences if you manage to stuff up with it. I'm not a fan of complicated, flashy or unrealistic magic. Magic for me when it appears has to be natural, simple and do what it needs to do basically. For example the dragons in Maggie Furey's Shadowleague series: feed on sunlight through their wings, this allows them to do what they need to and fly. I regard earth magic and elemental magic in the same grouping.
I'm not a fan of magic that is not well grounded in the reality of their particualar fantasy world either. I too agree with those that don't like magic that is gained by every man and his dog. Magic should be rare, difficult to master or obtain and have a consequence for the magic user.
Love magic thats set in the real modern world i.e harry potter and the kelley arsmtrong wicthces, wizards etc. Like the idea that they are among us but living compeltely different lives form us.
Lushbug, have you read the Jim Butcher Harry Dresden books?
I too would nominate Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden books if you are into real world magic style series, Lushbug.
Oooh no i havent even heard of them. I will have a look guys. Could do with a new fantasy series to curl up with. Love books that take me away from the everday-which is probably why i like fantast so much.
I can't recommend them highly enough...I rate the Dresden books as my favorite Urban Fantasy.
For those who like Dresden, may I also recommend the Nightside series by Simon R. Green, starting with Something from the Nightside. It's faster paced than Dresden, and more in the way of pure brain candy. I like them both for different reasons, but I think if you enjoy Dresden, you might also like the Nightside.
I like most of the Nightside books I've read and have a couple more waiting on my shelves. I'm sure it's a matter of taste. "Personally" I much prefer the Dresden series, others will like these or some other series better. I also kind of like Rob Thurman's Leandros brothers series...but not as much as Dresden. :)
I love magic but with only a few people being able to wield and it running down a blood line.
Tons of magic, and the more over-the-top the better. One thing I don't need in my fantasy is realism, so fantasy that tries to scale back the magic in an effort to be "realistic" just isn't for me.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Something from the Nightside (other topics)Warbreaker (other topics)
Mistborn: The Final Empire (other topics)
The Fionavar Tapestry (other topics)
Warbreaker (other topics)
More...
I prefer very little magic with very few wizards like in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf doesn't really do much in the way of magic. He's more wisdom and knowledge but does remind you every once in a while that he is in fact a wizard. I tend to find things like Allanon from Sword of Shannara shooting blue flame from his fingertips cheesy, but I tolerate it b/c I think Allanon is pretty cool. I don't like it when there are lots of wizards b/c magic becomes like an everyday thing and being a wizard is no longer special.