How do you like your magical system?

[Keryl]

Hello All,

I hope no one minds me setting up a new Topic In Focus.

To my way of thinking magic is the core component of a fantasy. If the story doesn't have any magic in it, it's not a fantasy.

So, anyone want to talk magical systems? What sorts of magic make you happy? Which books created magical systems that really worked? And what about those systems made them work?

[Colin]

I don't think magic has to be prominent in a book to justify the 'fantasy' tag, ie. A Game of Thrones, but it's certainly an expectation. Personally, and I feel that these days I'm in a minority in saying this, I don't need (or want) to be drowned in the detail of how magic works, I just need to feel confident that how ever the metaphysics of it runs, that it's internally consistent.

There's been a rising fashion over the past decade that delves into the guts of how such power is tapped, functions and flows, particularly in the setting of educational institutions. It's almost like readers want things explained to them in their escapism, just as they've been drummed into them at school, college or university in the real world. Where's the escapism in that?

To my mind, some of that detail in some of those cases ruins the mystery of magic or at least devalues it. Like I said before; I just want to know that magic has some kind of consistency and logic so that it can't be used as a crutch for the plot, other than that, I want to see something fresh, but I don't need every detail explained to me.

[Marcin]

I like a pretty wide variety of approaches, as long as they're internally consistent (i.e. the consequences of structuring a magical system a particular way have been thought through).

Lately, though, I've been getting back into a sword-and-sorcery pulp kick, so I've been loving really dark magic. Selling souls, human sacrifice, etc.; magic as Things Man Was Not Mean to Know, or whose secrets will leave practitioners gibbering in a padded room somewhere, Lovecraft style.

To that end, I've been enjoying the way magic works in Martin's ASoIaF. It's mostly in the background (but getting more prominent), and is just macabre enough to bring out my grin.

On the other side of the spectrum, I actually kind of like the D&D just-follow-the-recipe approach, but the trouble with books with high magic with predictable workings is that they don't always go fantastic *enough* - i.e. they don't do a good enough job of thinking through what that power level would do to a world. I remember liking Brust for this - in his books, resurrection and the like are absolutely common-place for the rich, and it's all integrated fairly believably. Mind, I haven't read any of those in ages, so I'm going on old memories.

[Jon]

Keryl wrote: "Hello All,

I hope no one minds me setting up a new Topic In Focus.

To my way of thinking magic is the core component of a fantasy. If the story doesn't have any magic in it, it's not a fanta..."

Actually, Keryl, our "Topics in Focus" are planned ahead by the moderators. I will move this thread to an appropriate members area so that we can continue one with our planned series once we finish coordinating it.

[Colin]

I particularly agree that I like to see something powerful and with roots. Not something that is as simple as a recipe, but there are times and styles of fiction where, of course, that approach suits.

I do like a dark and menacing kind of magic, something that comes with a heavy cost. The type where you know the gods, fate or destiny is running a tab, and that sooner or later it will call in the debt. Such magic has to be worth paying for, of course, and so is consequently more suited to dark fantasy and epics.

[Sandra]

Well, you're prodding me, Keryl. I haven't set one up in a while. But since you've started this, it promises to be a good discussion.

I don't need conventional magic to be present in a book to consider it fantasy - Guy Gavriel Kay, anyone? But if there is magic present, I need it to make some kind of sense to work for me. If it's too far out there, I start rolling my eyes and tune out. Patrick Rothfuss' magic makes a kind of sense - 'naming' is an old old idea and thought to bring power or reduce power - the old yahweh tales in the OT for instance. God has no name -- I am that I am.

Many cultures kept names secret, thinking that to give them out gave others power over them.

Also, the idea of 'sympathy' or likeness is an old concept that makes a kind of sense.

Images of horror from nightmare make a kind of emotional sense and can work for me.

Janny Wurts uses concepts of energy to create her magic system in the Wars of Light and Shadow. And that resonates with me a lot. The hero is a master bard whose music can soothe, heal, or disrupt and disturb. That makes a lot of sense to me.

The idea of parallel universes where there are 'thin' spots is one that also works for me.

I agree with Colin that magic has to have consequences or a price. That just fits with the principles of life. Everything has a cost.

[Keryl]

For me the magic has to be in the service of the plot. And a well done plot is one where both the protagonist and the antagonist each have a shot at winning the conflict. So magic that's been designed in a way to keep enough balance in place to give both characters a shot makes me happy.

Magic that is too easy, be it recipe based pick up the wand, say the words, sprinkle the dust, and volia you've got a spell, or torment the old Hermit until he gives you the true name of the Dragon of Doom usually throws off that balance. So, if the magic is free and easy, then the opposing side needs access to it as well, or some other form of force to even up the playing field.

I'll admit to also liking a good amount of detail in how a magical system works. And by how I mean more on the meta level of how the energy is harnessed, focused, and used, as opposed to how many grams of Amber, rose petals, and eye of newt need to be in each potion. I was one of those magic wonks dissecting Harry Potter for what exactly was dark magic and what was light magic, and eventually when DH came out and JKR turned her magical system on it's head, I just gave up. I do read fantasy to escape, but I like to take my brain and analytical skills with me when I'm doing it.

Of all the magical systems I've read, the one used by Modesett for the Recluse series seemed to do the best job of balancing great power with great cost, and doing it in a way that made sense internally, and showed enough detail for how everything worked.

[J.D.]

I somewhat disagree with the premise that magic has to be present for a book to be fantasy. One of my biggest complaints is the sword and sorcery element overdone in fantasy. If we look at Tolkien, there's very little magic that actually happens in the book, and when it does it's always secondary. Sure, there's a magic ring, sure Gandalf is a wizard (but you can count on one hand the number of times he actually does something wizardly), but the strength of Tolkien isn't the magic, it's the characters.

Fantasy is getting better, but I still think there's too much magic in it. Magic too often is the main character, or acts as a sort of deus ex machina (David Eddings did this all the time), where characters are routinely saved by divine/magical intervention.

Like good science fiction, good fantasy should have an element of magic to it, but it shouldn't overwhelm the story.

That said, my favorite magic systems are the ones that are historically accurate. By that I mean, until recently the idea that magic comes from the individual was unknown. Magic was the result of ritual, or symbology. It was an external force that men had to learn to harness.

The Earthsea trilogy (one of my favorites) takes this route. A wizard needed to know the true name of something to work magic. By naming it, he could exert his will over it, thus wizards kept their true name hidden.

These are my favorite kinds of magical systems in a story.

[Keryl]

Jon wrote: "I somewhat disagree with the premise that magic has to be present for a book to be fantasy. One of my biggest complaints is the sword and sorcery element overdone in fantasy. If we look at Tolkie..."

I get what you're saying about how you don't want the magic to overrun the story, but if there's no magic at all, then is it still a fantasy?

Say you've got a chick lit with an elf for the main character, there's not a lick of magic in the whole thing, just modern elvish women musing about what it means to be an elvish woman, (Call it: Sex in the Forest) is it still a fantasy? I imagine most fantasy readers would be disappointed if they picked that book up.

[Traci]

Keryl I agree with you. I've liked fantasy with little or no magic. But I like fantasy elements in my fantasy. *shrug* Call me crazy. Saying you don't want magic in your fantasy is equal to saying, yes I read romance but I could do without all the romance. Hey, just my opinion. My first fantasy had magic, dragons, elves, orcs, etc. and was so different than the pre teen high school girlie books I had read up until then I fell in love. But recently I've noticed a trend. That the less fantasy elements a book has the more it's likely to get good reviews. Like we're ashamed. Yes I read fantasy but not like elves and such. I'm not a dork. Well maybe I am. =)
If you haven't tried Brandon Sanderson yet try him. He writes interesting magic systems. Also the Malazan series by Steven Erikson.

[Robert]

I agree that without magic, fantasy isn't fantasy. How much or how little is up to the author. Last year I read a good chunk of Howard's original Conan stories. Not much magic in them as a whole, but it popped up.

Now, as to "how" magic works, I think an author can use that to any effect. I used to write the odd article for Steve Jackson Games, and the kinds of magic discussed in their RPG inspired me. One approach was to use rune magic: symbols or words that you had to put together to cast a spell. Another, and I'd love to know if anauthor tried it, was cantrips: improvised poems to make a spell work.

[Bill]

A lot of talk about Magic, but what is magic. How is it defined? I tend to think off it as aspects of reality we do not understand. If we did, it wouldn't be magic (a theme of my current book: The Magicians)

This is sort of like Arthur C. Clarke's definition of magic, but can be expanded to include non-technological advances.

[Sandra]

From Wikipedia:

Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.[1] It is in contrast to science, in that science does not accept anything not subject to either direct or indirect observation, and subject to logical analysis, whereas practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic. Magic has been practised in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship.[2] Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practised in isolation and secrecy.[3]

But whether a book is fantasy without magic? I say again: Guy Gavriel Kay.

@Keryl - your example of elves is still fantasy. It may be bad fantasy, but anything with elves in it is still fantasy.

[Maggie]

Hmn - wonder who offered up that definition to Wikipedia? 'Manipulating' and 'focused on achieving results'. If folks agree - then I'd say my fantasy doesn't need magic at all. It might include aspects that could be labeled paranormal and are not manipulation of reality (telepathy, psychic, intuitive), fanatsy beings (elves, werewolves, vampires) - I was going to say magical beings or environments - but not by Wikipedia's definition. Theirs seems based on "old school" what I'd call formula magic (do a spell - get this result).

As others have noted - not a fan of a didatic dissertation on specifics. It seems amateurish if someone needs to dump all their research into a book or go overboard on world building. Yet - I'll note where the line is can be discretionary. For me - I start to feel preached to or the author is showing off their knowledge more than furthering the plot.

Example of something I enjoy - C.E. Murphy's Shaman Joanna Walker dreamwalking is done well; Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan series - her witches, Jenks, Bis; Kelly Armstrong Bitten, Women of the Otherworld series.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

I am not really picky about magic systems. I just want it to make sense and to follow the laws of energy. I think that there has to be a cost to magic use of some sort, to follow the laws of physics. I like to see novel magic systems, but they should make sense and not be hokey or implausible.

[Sonia]

To me, magic has to have a real, tangible price attached, rather than the somewhat traditional energy drain a lot of authors use. I like how Garth Nix handles magic in Sabriel, of the Abhorsen trilogy, or how Lev Grossman does it in The Magicians. Diane Duane does it well, with The Young Wizards books. She also integrates it seamlessly into the laws of physics, which is thoroughly awesome.

[Keryl]

Kernos wrote: "A lot of talk about Magic, but what is magic. How is it defined? I tend to think off it as aspects of reality we do not understand. If we did, it wouldn't be magic (a theme of my current book: [boo..."

With the added level of the difference between magic in the real world (Wicca, Pagan, Asatru, etc..) and magic in fiction.

After all, in most fantasy (not UF or PNR) there is no scientific method to contrast magic to. In the real world alchemy and astrology get tossed into the magic camp. But in a world where there is no idea of setting and testing hypothesis they're pretty much as close to science as you can get.

In fantasy I'd say pretty much anything defined by the author as magic gets to be magic. Anything outside of the way the world works according to the reader also gets to qualify as magic. So, if the mage in question sets up a collection of wires and crystal bowls just right, and they start to somehow sing and tell him things, we might recognize he's got a very crude radio. But for the sake of the book, I think we can call it magic. And if the author says it's magic, then it certainly counts as such.

[Keryl]

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "@Keryl - your example of elves is still fantasy. It may be bad fantasy, but anything with elves in it is still fantasy. "

Would it though? Is pointy ears and slanted eyes on your main character enough to make it a fantasy? Once upon a time having a vampire or a werewolf in a book was enough to make it horror. Obviously as the stories changed the genres did as well.

My understanding is that the reason we have genres is to help readers find the sorts of books they like. Until there's a paranormal chick lit genre, the sorts of people who would want to read Sex in the Forest are unlikely to be the kind of people who would find it on the fantasy shelf. But, if it was sitting next to The Devil Wears Prada, it would find it's target audience.

Oh well, just musing about this. Obviously elves are fantastic in and of themselves.

[Bill]

Keryl wrote: "...Would it though? Is pointy ears and slanted eyes on your main character enough to make it a fantasy?..."

No, because they could be Vulcans, like Spock!

[Karen]

I like subtle magic, interesting magic, where the characters really have to think outside the box to use the magic in a way that makes a difference. I also like it when the magic does not overshadow the choices of the characters.

[Kat]

Marcin wrote: "I like a pretty wide variety of approaches, as long as they're internally consistent (i.e. the consequences of structuring a magical system a particular way have been thought through).

Lately, tho..."

Oh, Brust does it so well. He's right, of course. If that magic was around the rich would never die. But Sword and Sorcery does have a charming, dark sense of nostalgia about it.

On the other hand, sometimes I really like stories where the implications of some bit of magic drive the plot. Although if the magic gets too all-consuming, then it sometimes descends into horror.

I think the elf example might actually fall better into magical realism. That genre seems to take the magical side fully for granted and go on about its ordinary life.

[Chelsea]

Two books in particular stand out for me regarding this. The Black Prism and The Outstretched Shadow. I'm a sucker for color and elemental magic, and the idea of the mage price in the Obsidian Trilogy was really cool to see acted out, especially in contrast with the high mages in the human city.

[Jen]

I really loved the magic systems in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy. The first system, allomancy, is basically different metals which grant different abilities - enhanced strength, enhanced senses, ability to push metal away, etc. It was simple to understand, could be very powerful, and yet had finite limits - when the user ran out of metal, they were powerless.

And that's what I liked the most - it was limited and therefore left our characters with obvious weaknesses. It seems many magic users are without limits and can pull off any trick at any moment; I like to balance the power with the vulnerabilities that should come with it.

[Ross]

As far as magic goes, I like the classical style; the slightly derivative words resulting in an otherworldly power, but only if it's done well, and usually if there is something new and different about it.

I liked the use of Sympathy in The Name of the Wind, as well as the Vir used in The Night Angel Trilogy. The idea of additive and subtractive magic was also one of my favourite application of the arcane.

As mentioned above, I too am a big fan of the understated and enigmatic magic that is neither in your face and is still unexplained, which stands to reason that I am a huge fan of Martin's ASOIAF series. Magic is not essential for good fantasy and there are a lot of examples of this.

Has anyone read M.D.Lachlan's Wolfsangel? The type of magic used there is very primal and dare I say, gruesome in it's obtaining. It's very similar to the kind of magic you would associate with Shaman's and misunderstood herbmistresses, but quite a refreshing, if a little terrifying read.

[Mach]

I don't really consider Guy Kay to be a fantasy writer, i see him as a Historical writer. Even though his books are classified as Historical Fantasy, there is no fantasy elements there, that is my personal opinion though.

[Sam]

In general the "classic" (doing magic out of nothing) doesn't satisfy me. When producing something by magic or making something happen basic rules of physics and chemistry should apply, like Patrick Rothfuss introduced in The Name of the Wind. You take energy from an object or from yourself and transfrom it.
Speaking of transformation: I recently re-read Terry Pratchetts Thud in which a character complains about the problems of tranforming into bats. The transformation involves every gram of your actual figure, so she had to transform into many bats. That sounds more likely to me than the Vampire-to-bat idea.

[Ross]

Iselin, I would agre with you there. One of the reasons I found Dragonlance to be a little underwhelming was, apart from it's slightly trite fantasy sterotypes, was the use of magic, although, deriving magic from a certain deity a la Clerical magic did appeal to me a little.

As you say the 'physics' of magic make it more scientific or logical, but I'm not sure that's everyone's cup of tea, speaking the primal language of magic, as set out by Le Guin's Earthsea quadrology, is also something thatI quite like, although, generally I prefer my magic physical rather than verbal.

I'm more intrested not in the use or harnessing of magic in it's various forms, but of how an individual obtains/ is cursed by the 'gift/scourge' of magic; is it at random? Is magic inherited, is it, even, genetic?

[Traci]

Mach wrote: "I don't really consider Guy Kay to be a fantasy writer, i see him as a Historical writer. Even though his books are classified as Historical Fantasy, there is no fantasy elements there, that is my ..."

I haven't read all of his books yet, but I do consider the Fionavar series fantasy, it's an obvious adult take on Narnia, also Tigana. Under Heaven though was a no, it had no fantasy elements IMO.

[Sandra]

Traci wrote: "Mach wrote: "I don't really consider Guy Kay to be a fantasy writer, i see him as a Historical writer. Even though his books are classified as Historical Fantasy, there is no fantasy elements there..."

Yes it did. The horses and the ghosts or spirits.

[Sheriffkilla]

Well I just began Tigana, my first Kay book. And there is certainly magic there so...
I personally prefer little magic as possible BUT still some magic. Martin seems to have struck a perfect balance in ASOIAF (to me).
As far as interesting magic systems, I have to agree on Black Prism and Mistborn. I also like Bakker's "sorcery comes from philosophy and metaphysics" system. It's a bit vague but I do enjoy that concept.