Letting Magic be Magical
by brandonsanderson on Jun.11, 2009, under Brandon Sanderson
Some who have followed my website probably know how the concept of using magic in fantasy novels intrigues me. It’s probably my favorite aspect of writing in this genre, and is what keeps me firmly fixed here. I’m not likely to wander to other types of books because I find the freedom and challenge of writing fantasy–of worldbuilding and designing new laws of physics–to be too compelling.
A while back, I started toying with a theory about how magic works in fantasy novels. It went something like this: The more you explain how a magic works, the less wonder there is to that magic–but the more chances you have to use the magic in solving problems. (I once summarized this as the humbly titled “Sanderson’s First Law of Magic: Your ability to solve problems with the magic system in a book is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.”)
I’m still toying with this theory. There are holes in it. For instance, it really should read something like “Your ability to solve problems with magic and NOT ANNOY YOUR READER is directly proportional to…” After all, you can do anything you want in a novel you’re writing. You just risk alienating or annoying readers if you do certain things.
I’ve actually struggled with this concept in my own books. I want there to be a sense of wonder to the stories. Magic has to be magical. And yet, I love playing with science and physics, and writing blended science fiction fantasies where the magic feels in many ways like a classical-era science. In this way, every single book I’ve written has been a tiny bit steampunk, though the trappings of that are very hard to see. (I work very hard to give my books the FEEL of an epic fantasy, no matter what I’m borrowing or mixing from other genres.)
This is all harder than it looks. Sometimes, I feel I’ve erred a little too much on leaving a sense of wonder. (Questions about how the magic works for the characters and readers to explore.) When you do this the wrong way, you end up with Deus Ex Machina at times. And yet, explain too much, and the beautiful, magical feel of the fantasy world is gone.
I’m still playing with this balance. But I’m curious to know what you all think. What is your preference? Straight-up science based magic, or something more wondrous like Tolkien used? Do both work for you, if done right? Who approaches the different avenues the right way?
Related posts:
- The Magic & Tech Challenge I like the Arthur C. Clarke quote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” The more advanced the technology in a fantasy setting, the less wondrous magic appears. Technology gives us the power to fly and the capability to communicate across thousands of miles. Not so long ago, both...
- Magic Systems (and an excerpt from Warbreaker) I like magic with wonder and mystery. I don’t necessarily want to know why or how it works, but I absolutely want to know what characters are capable of doing with it. Tell me early in a story, so I’m not surprised whenever a wizard pulls a new trick out...
- Steampunk/Gearpunk Talking about people taking chances with fantasy and pushing the genre in interesting places has me thinking about one of my favorite spec-fic subgenres: Steampunk. I’ve been fascinated by the Steampunk (and its younger cousin gearpunk/springpunk/whatever you want to call it) since my early days enjoying the anime movies my...
- The Journey in Fantasy I think it’s easy to understand why the concept of the journey is so intriguing in fantasy novels. There are few things which separate our modern world from previous eras more than that of distance and travel. To us, all things are close. The other side of the world is...
- Guns and Words I can still remember the first fantasy novel I read that used gunpowder. It was one of the Robin McKinley books, the Blue Sword or The Hero and the Crown. I’ve mentioned before in one of these posts just how wrong that felt to me. And then, the fact that...
40 Comments for this entry
1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry
-
physics answers
June 23rd, 2009 on 11:48 amphysics answers…
The help resources listed on this page are intended to assist in learing basic physics principles….
June 11th, 2009 on 4:26 pm
I like both, if done right.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:28 pm
I like what George R. R. martin said, “Magic is like spice, too much and you ruin the soup.”
That said, if you are going to base your story (especially the ending) on the use of magic, the readers needs to understand it, if not logically at least intuitively.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:33 pm
I much prefer the “science” version. You never really know what Gandalf is capable of. Seriously, besides some fireworks in the Shire and an exorcism in Rohan, what does his “magic” do? But Jordan’s “One Power” or your “Allomancy” and “BioChromatic” magic systems are much more believable in their own worlds when we understand the cause and effect. Knowing the rules of a system and the limits of a system makes for better reading in my opinion.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:33 pm
I have to say that I tend to enjoy magic that I understand. That was always one of my biggest problems with the Sword of Truth series - often times the magic used by the main character was all instinctual, and it felt like a cop-out by the author. I feel that if the author hasn’t taken the time to explain something of how the magic works, it means that the author hasn’t decided how it works. Your Mistborn trilogy is a perfect example of the readers knowing how the magic works, and the characters still being able to believably solve problems.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:43 pm
In some books I’ve read, if magic is used for the good, there don’t seem to be any sort of consequences. I find the magic in the Mistborn books fascinating and magical because in order to accomplish one’s goals, you have to carefully consider what energy sources will be depleted and the consequences involved in using magic for good or for evil intent. When there aren’t any consequences, or when something works out because of a well-thought-out plan, it’s more magical for me.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:45 pm
I love the way its done in the WOT and in terry brooks worlds so I guess its both
June 11th, 2009 on 4:45 pm
LotR/Harry Potter-type magic makes for cheap thrills and entertainment. I won’t read those books, though, I’ll wait for the movie rendition. Because honestly, it’s so hard to envision how a magic system works when it’s something so fantastical. The movie’s just show me what I’m supposed to be imagining. With books with a magic system that relies on a causal mechanism (e.g. allomancy), I relate more to the book. It’s more real, more possible. And I like that. Just like in the real world, I don’t like having to rely on “that’s just how it is.” So I don’t really want that in my fantasy novels, either!
June 11th, 2009 on 4:47 pm
What’s “Harry Potter” magic?
On that note, I vote for either complex/ explainable magic– or at least characters using some creativity and intelligence to solve problems other than shooting magic out of their fingertips.
And I agree with the above, the science-based magickery is one of the best parts of Mistborn, etc. I almost feel like the science-based is a good reflection of the times, as the world becomes more aware of the sciences and technology. IE Tolkien worked perfectly 50+ years ago and still does, but there’s room for other things today.
June 11th, 2009 on 4:55 pm
I’m still toying with this theory. There are holes in it. For instance, it really should read something like “Your ability to solve problems with magic and NOT ANNOY YOUR READER is directly proportional to…”
Also known as the Midichlorians Equation…
June 11th, 2009 on 5:11 pm
Another thing to consider in this discussion is “exposure” of the mighty bad guys. This comes in relation of “keeping it special”. Take the Wheel of Time (miniSPOIL ALERT). In the early books the Forsaken were just talked about and they were really ominous evil beings that truly made you feel some dread. But when some chapters were written under their POV all of a sudden they became pretty manageable beings. They lost their evil dread towards the reader.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:12 pm
I’ll be “that guy” and say I kind of prefer magic to be less explained. Now don’t get me wrong, I love the magic systems of WoT and Mistborn, but I feel the more it’s explained, the more it’s science and not magic. I guess for me, there’s something in the definition of ‘magic’ that means it’s unexplainable. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be internally consistent, or without well-defined boundaries by the author. But as for how a fireball comes out of a wizard’s hand, where the power comes from, how the fire’s generated, etc., I don’t care to know the details. Some may want their fantasy worlds to be as realistic as possible, and that’s totally fine. Me, I read fantasy to escape reality. I don’t expect things to be plausible. Internally consistent, especially for the magic system, yes, but “oh, this could really happen given these set of circumstances”, no.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:14 pm
I’m probably a bit biased because I really am a WoT fanboy, but I think it is safe to say that I prefer science based magic. Although I think it is unfotunate for the story if magical beings are too powerfull thus making it impossible for a “normal” guy to make a differance.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:16 pm
Magic comes, I think, in two forms — the first form is the tried and true “magic from within” that writers have been plopping into their stories since the days of the Brothers Grimm. This is the magic that no one needs explained because we all “know” how it works. Magic user waves his/her hand/wand and says something (lots of room for entertainment here) and “interesting things happen.”
The second form is … everything else. Magic that the writer has spent a long time working on — DIFFERENT magics that DON’T simply appear when a witch or wizard does something arcane but familiar. Or maybe they do - but they aren’t what we expect.
Yours is in that second batch, of course.
Inventive, unique, sometimes confusing as hell to the readers if the writer hasn’t made his methods clear enough. Sometimes that confusion is deliberate, sometimes it’s an accident, sometimes it works to keep it mysterious, sometimes the readers say, “wtf?” and move on to something less obscure…
You’re asking the wrong question, I think. It ALL works, or doesn’t, depending entirely on the writer. Can you offer me a new take on magic and make it believable? Interesting? Does the STORY work?
If you’re writing about elves, dragons and wizards, are you regurgitating other writer’s concepts or have you seen something new you can show us? Will we be entertained?
You are the magician, and it’s up to you to make the spell you cast on your readers viable.
So far… so good.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:22 pm
I agree with most of the other comments, the more scientific magick works best in my opinion. Though, in my case, that may simply be a consequence of wanting to know how everything works. Not only do I prefer my magick like that, I even actively forget there was magick in Lord Of The Rings to begin with.
Inexplicable magick is no longer a possibility in our modern times, in my opinion, because we adhere to at least one fundamental concept: causality. Since everything has a cause, everything can be explained, magick cannot be an exception. In fact, no exception could exist because it would break the universe in indescribable ways.
Of course, causality is not enough to make you want to know, but humans are very curious creatures, most of us anyway, we want to know everything about everything.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:28 pm
I like almost any sort of magic, whether with or without concrete rules. Even Allomancy has a sense of wonder because the ability to (sort of) fly is really cool. And we still don’t know everything that the Mistborn magic systems are capable of.
I recently read an article (that I disagreed with) that said fans of superhero comic books didn’t like those stories having alot of magic, because magic had no rules and could be used as a plot device by lazy writers to do anything. Even if magic doesn’t have rules the most important thing is for magic to have consequences, I think. The Magic Kingdom of Landover series obeys your First Law - the magic can do pretty much anything with no limits, but the main characters have only small control over it and magic always has consequences that the characters have to deal with throughout the entire books. Magic has consequences is definitely a recurring theme of Terry Brooks…
Midichlorians definitely screw up the sense of wonder of The Force because it contradicts the way the Force was portrayed in the previous three movies. Going from ‘The Force is strong with this one’ to ‘you have a score of 2000 midichlorians’ is silly. The most problematic thing is the virgin birth, which does not work in that story at all.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:33 pm
I don’t mind either type as long as it has a good story to carry it. However I do prefer the more science based magic. I think it makes for a more interesting story and makes it more believable while still being fascinating and strange. I love science and question everything, so having some explanation and rules to a magic system really appeals to me.
June 11th, 2009 on 5:41 pm
This blog posting is the fantasy equivalent to the classic “Hard Sci-fi” versus “Space Opera Sci-fi” debate.
Both have their obvious place just like both types of magic systems do.
Sometimes, people just want a fun little sojourn through a magical world and do not really need to know how it all works.
Other times, people want to take a bit longer of a vacation in a world-built-in-a-book. In those cases, it is usually more enjoyable to have some understanding of how things work in that world.
M
June 11th, 2009 on 5:41 pm
I much prefer the scientifically explained magic!
June 11th, 2009 on 6:00 pm
Both are fine, it comes down to execution. Though I admit that the lack of any real explanation by Tolkien in LOTR was one of my few complaints about the book. By no means did it keep me from enjoying excellent writing, but I would have liked to know more. Gandalf seemed to go from being able to do anything (fighting a Balrog while falling through the air) but then seemed to avoid use of his magic where it could of come in handy. Just don’t let it steal the show from the characters and the plot.
June 11th, 2009 on 6:01 pm
Most of the posts here so far seem to be ignoring two big aspects of Brandon’s First Law. Admittedly, I have a preference for the science/rules based magic, but I think Brandon’s point is that either side of the continuum can work equally well. When it comes to the more mysterious, unexplained magic, you just have to remember:
1) The magic can’t be used to solve characters’ problems. Magic didn’t save the day in Lord of the Rings; it was Frodo and Sam’s perserverence that got the ring to Mount Doom, and the well established rivalry with Gollum that finally had it destroyed.
2) Just because magic can’t SOLVE problems doesn’t mean it can’t CREATE problems. Readers are far more forgiving in that case.
June 11th, 2009 on 6:57 pm
I think the problem with unexplained magic is that it frustrates the reader. With no rules and no boundaries set, the reader is left to wonder why the character didn’t just solve all his problems with magic.
As a couple of others have mentioned, repercussions go a long way towards answering this. Provided that a good reason is provided for not solving all of one’s problems with magic, then how much we know about the internal workings is irrelevant.
This is actually one of the problems with “The Force” (even more than the midichlorions); there’s no obvious consequence to abusing the force. Why don’t the evil bad guys just kill everyone with invisible chokes and lightning-bolt hands all the time? Heck, Vader could kill someone through a videophone!
When you force your readers to come up with justifications, you know that something’s just not right.
June 11th, 2009 on 7:31 pm
I prefer the science-based magic systems, but that doesn’t mean every nuance needs to be explained.
Often in science there are unexplainable forces, such as gravity, that have a noticeable affect without needing a detailed explanation. The fact that gravitation can be mostly modeled with a simple equation is good enough for the general population.
Magic should be the same way. I enjoy knowing that magical forces are restricted to a general set of rules that should be obeyed. As long as newly introduced magical powers do not shatter these rules, I’ll accept them.
June 11th, 2009 on 9:03 pm
I’ve always looked at magic as the unexplained sciences, and if you explain them, then it’s just plain ol’ science.
In my own writing, I tend to borrow from other genre’s science, and then write with a full understanding myself of the system. Making it “magical” to the reader, without bringing in the Deus ex Machina which I hate seeing in any entertainment media, is the part that I really enjoy.
June 11th, 2009 on 11:01 pm
The idea of a magic system having understood rules and laws, much like physics, is something I love. In fact, it’s the primary reason I enjoy the Wheel of Time series so much. It’s why I rushed out to purchase the hardcovers of the Mistborn books on the days they were released.
When the workings of magic is explained, even when its origins are shrouded in mystery, it becomes less… magical. The characters who wield the magic have power, but they also have limitations that the reader, for the most part, understands. It gives the author a way to have dramatic and suspenseful moments without alienating the reader.
I guess what I’m saying is that whatever you’re doing is working, and I’m already salivating over the next Sanderson novel.
In fact, I’m torn. I love Wheel of Time, and you writing it is pretty ideal as far as I’m concerned. However, it means I have to wait longer to get an original Sanderson creation… damn our lack of progress in human cloning.
June 12th, 2009 on 3:48 am
I like it both ways, depending on the author. I hate it when magic is a convenient plot device. The ‘oh no I’ve gone and got my protagonist in an unwinnable situation so suddenly they’ll pluck something magical out of the air’ ploy. It is reasonably disappointing way of finishing things. I like explanation, but I don’t like being bored by rules and tedious questions defining something that ultimately doesn’t exist. Enough explanation and enough definition of rules that you understand the limitations, and they aren’t then broken, but not enough to bore, is about where I think it should be.
There definitely has to be a limitation. I do like in Pelman the Powershaper, the limitation that they can do anything (pretty much) but they can only do one thing at a time and it takes all their concentration. It works well. But I also like in other books where they are limited by a field of study or rules. As long as the book is consistent throughout. That is the important thing. And the magic enhances the story. There can’t just be magic for magics sake, it has to have a purpose.
June 12th, 2009 on 4:58 am
the thing i really like about the Wheel of Time ‘magic’ system that Jordan devised is that it is completely linked with the foundations of his world building. in building the world of the Wheel, jordan creates and shows the reader (along with the protagonists) a whole system of science and philosophy completely different from that of our own world.
June 12th, 2009 on 7:10 am
I’ll just join the chorus and cast my vote for the more science-based magic.
My main concern is rules. As long as there are rules, I’m happy. Rules means limits. If I, as a reader, can’t see the limits of the magic, then I’ll keep wondering why magic is simply not used to save the day and the damsel, live sappily ever after and end the book in three chapters tops. Magic-users can be powerful, but if they’re omnipotent, there can be no problem, and without a problem, there’s not really a story.
June 12th, 2009 on 8:25 am
I guess the primary question is - what is magic? If it’s too vague (i.e. Harry Potter), anything is possible with a spell or incantation. Too much science/explanation, and it’s like a complicated math problem. I think it all depends on how it is used. I once read an interesting interview with Terry Goodkind where the essence of the conversation regarding magic was that it was simply a tool to be used in the world. The stories he wrote aren’t about magic, and if you’re reading his books just to experience a new, different take on magic you’re just wasting your time. Rather, magic is used as any other tool would be in the ‘real world,’ and is simply a vehicle to help propel the real story.
That being said, I think writers who use magic as the only tool to make their story fantasy (as in, this could happen in reality except they waved a wand instead of using manual labor) is disappointing. There are no consequences involved, and no compelling reason to have magic in the story. Similar to including elves, dwarves, dragons, etc. Unless the story uses those elements in an interesting way, their inclusion is just trite.
Best magic systems (IMO): Weis and Hickman’s Death Gate Cycle, Lackey’s Valdemar series (for younger readers) and Marillier’s Seven Waters Trilogy (subtle, but there).
June 12th, 2009 on 9:19 am
I only read the first half of the responses before I had to stop because I saw someone group together harry potter and lord of the rings, which made me shudder.
I know that in the Lord of the Rings trilogy it doesn’t explain all the different types of magic systems in use, but if you read the back histories you understand where all the different sources(Istari, Balrogs, Sauron, ect…) of magic come from and a little bit about each of them and their uses. It makes a lot of sense when you understand it all.
Harry Potter never explains where the magic comes from and the worst problem is that its unlimited. I liked HP for the story, but the magic system was severely flawed because of the lack of a toll on the caster. Magic is a form of energy and energy has to come from somewhere. In my mind if someone is to create a ball of fire the energy required to create that fire has to come from somewhere, either the caster himself, or some well of power that the caster has access to.
I agree with your(Brandon) rule tho. In my mind magic would be another event which has rules like any other in the physical world. I think its all about balance. With most magic you have to sacrifice something(usually a form of energy coming from the user) to be able to create it. That is the reason I liked your Allomancy so much. Especially the pushing and pulling of metals, because it showed a natural cause/effect relationship between how much iron/steel you burned and how fast the object moved.
In order for a magic system to be compelling to the reader it needs to balance the unknown with a basic set of rules and consequences that the reader can understand without too much thought. And it MUST have consequences for abuse of the power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don’t know about you, but having unlimited magical abilities with no toll on my mind or any other source seems like absolute power to me.
June 12th, 2009 on 10:25 am
I’ll just play devil’s advocate…Magic in Harry Potter does have limits. Time and space matter, as Snape explains in book five or six. You can’t wave your wand and blow up the sun, and you can’t read someone’s mind from miles away. It’s true that there’s no apparent energy cost from the user, that would be more like the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. But Harry and his friends do require 7 years of schooling, so you can’t control the magic without intensive study and practice. Consequences for abuse of power? Voldemort.
June 12th, 2009 on 12:35 pm
What’s Sanderson’s Second Law of Magic? Are there any more laws?
I think it’s clear that a magic system without bounds, laws or limits (even just a few) isn’t really popular with anyone. I agree that causality and consequences make magic systems more entertaining. Then more problem solving requires some magic and something else, either from the nature of the characters or the setting, rather than relying on the magic system to solve everything.
Of course, the evolution of powers and growth of knowledge keeps me drawn in, so I don’t like magic systems that have too many limits, maybe to concentrate more on character development. Not that it’s bad, just that a balance is preferred. Like Mistborn’s triune magic system. More aspects of the systems were explained as the books progressed, rather than having additions.
I also think the consequences of the difficulties from the author’s perspective, and the enjoyment from the reader’s perspective, is not defined in magic systems that have a particular amount of explanation. But that goes into how to write a book more than the specifics of magic systems.
June 12th, 2009 on 2:52 pm
When you get too detailed with your explanations of how magic works, it starts to read like a video game manual.
June 12th, 2009 on 9:44 pm
One thing I’ve learned from reading, there may be many wrong ways, but it’s difficult to define the right way. The best way I think to to develop the story, the characters and plot, and make sure the fantasy, magic, science, world building, or what ever is used is interesting and entertaining first, and detailed second.
Tolkien built a great world but barely gave any detail at all on how magic in Middle Earth works. But the story is great, one of my favorites. WOT and Mistborn give a great deal more about how the magic works, still great stories. Especially WOT where the characters and world are so detail, almost better than most people I know in the real world.
Whatever works for the story your writing (or reading) is best. No matter how great the magic system, without a great story around it what good is the magic. Different situations usually require different balances.
I can say that too much detail to fast - boring. Needs some mystery especially in the beginning. The reader must think a little, try to figure things out for themselves, before the way things work is explained in the story.
11/3/09, TGS
June 14th, 2009 on 2:53 pm
I can deal with both methods, as long as the magic system and the storyline are consistent within themselves. I just don’t want to see the wires!
If a writer is going t go with the scientific approach, he or she had bloody well do their research. It gripes the heck out of me to see just plain BAD science in a book or movie.
For example, the new Star Trek movie. I’m a trekker from day ONE, love it all. But when they maroon Spock Prime on Delta Vega, a planet not known to be anywhre near Vulcan, let alone in the same solar system, and from this vantage point he can WATCH Vulcan implode with the naked eye, appearing larger in aspect than our moon from Earth - impossible. That jolts me out of the story and into too much critical analysis.
The baddies drill into Earth’s core withn site of Starfleet Academy and there isn’t a SINGLE ship or shuttle in sight to blast that drill? I could have done it with an antique F-15, ferheavensake. No, Spock had to swoop in and save the day.
Terminator Salvation - too many to mention except at the end, when they perform a field hospital heart transplant! Outside, under netting, without a sterile field in site! No anti-rejection drugs (antibiotics even being hard to come by, we are told) no team of specialists - oh, they did just happen to have a blood exchanger lying around. How fortuitous! They must have gone to the Zoidberg school of medicine! Just plop it in there and sew ‘em up! Auffff.
These things bother me far more than any magical deux ex machina.
Thankfully, RJ and Brandon Sanderson are not guilty of this sort of science faux pas.
Brandon is the best, I am so excited that he is finishing the series! There is no one more qualified, and he has the work ethic and capacity to get these books DONE! Thank the Light for Brandon!
June 14th, 2009 on 2:53 pm
I can deal with both methods, as long as the magic system and the storyline are consistent within themselves. I just don’t want to see the wires!
If a writer is going t go with the scientific approach, he or she had bloody well do their research. It gripes the heck out of me to see just plain BAD science in a book or movie.
For example, the new Star Trek movie. I’m a trekker from day ONE, love it all. But when they maroon Spock Prime on Delta Vega, a planet not known to be anywhre near Vulcan, let alone in the same solar system, and from this vantage point he can WATCH Vulcan implode with the naked eye, appearing larger in aspect than our moon from Earth - impossible. That jolts me out of the story and into too much critical analysis.
The baddies drill into Earth’s core withn site of Starfleet Academy and there isn’t a SINGLE ship or shuttle in sight to blast that drill? I could have done it with an antique F-15, ferheavensake. No, Spock had to swoop in and save the day.
Terminator Salvation - too many to mention except at the end, when they perform a field hospital heart transplant! Outside, under netting, without a sterile field in site! No anti-rejection drugs (antibiotics even being hard to come by, we are told) no team of specialists - oh, they did just happen to have a blood exchanger lying around. How fortuitous! They must have gone to the Zoidberg school of medicine! Just plop it in there and sew ‘em up! Auffff.
These things bother me far more than any magical deux ex machina.
Thankfully, RJ and Brandon Sanderson are not guilty of this sort of science faux pas.
Brandon is the best, I am so excited that he is finishing the series! There is no one more qualified, and he has the work ethic and capacity to get these books DONE! Thank the Light for Brandon!
June 15th, 2009 on 7:12 pm
I think “science based magic” verses “wonder based magic” are the wrong names to use. Up until the late 19th century, disease was completely misunderstood. Nobody knew about germs or DNA. That didn’t make disease non-science based. It’s just that we couldn’t see the patterns and use them to solve problems. It’s the same way with magic. The better the magic and it’s limits are understood, the more capable we are of exploiting its nuances to solve problems.
On the other hand, when something is made-up, there are always flaws. When an author tries too hard to explain the details of magic, holes and inconsistencies are too often introduced. So it’s better not to explain too much. In Mistborn, the magic is not explained, only explored. The limits of the magic and their consistent behavior are beautifully done. But there is no effort to explain the mechanics of how “burning” a metal in your stomach is supposed to affect the world around you. It just happens that way.
June 16th, 2009 on 1:37 pm
Clifton,
Gandalf changed colors. He went from being a Fire Magus (gandalf the Grey) to being Gandalf the White, who had inherited SARUMON’s powers — which were FAR more leadership oriented.
Gandalf the Grey was a crabby old sparky pine log. Gandalf the White was a noble creature.
There is a very important plot point about Gandalf returning, and I’m glad to give you the inside scoop (I know a Tolkien expert or two).
June 16th, 2009 on 5:11 pm
Please, enlighten us further, Miako!
June 16th, 2009 on 5:11 pm
Please, enlighten us further, Miako!
June 26th, 2009 on 12:15 pm
In adult fantasy, magic needs to have rules. A mostly unlimited magic can create sense of wonder for children who aren’t too jaded, but it will almost always feel like a cop-out to adults. I just started the Mistborn trilogy about two weeks ago… and finished it two days ago. You just ousted the Sword of Truth series as my second favorite (the first being Wheel of Time, which is what got me reading your material in the first place).
As someone mentioned above, it’s very frustrating that Richard’s magic in Sword of Truth was based on instinct–and love (which, much as I respect Rowling, is even worse). But I could stand it, because at least he didn’t use it very often and it was self-consistent. The new tv series is bringing out the rule you stated in full force, though. I can deal with him rewriting the stories for tv, switching around the order of plot points, changing how things resolve, but what I can’t stand is the overuse of hand-wavy magic to solve every problem. I swear there’s a Deus Ex Machina in *every episode*.
Anyway, the point of all this rambling is, stick to the strict systems! The more you write using them, the more I’ll read. It’s the world-building that draws me into a series, and revelations that remain self-consistent are what keeps me reading. Mistborn had it in spades!