posted
At SDCC, George R.R. Martin was asked many questions about A Song of Ice and Fire. Among them, on why he made magic so rare and costly in what's an epic fantasy.
His reasoning was that magic seems more...well...magical if it's rare and mysterious.
He also pointed out that low magic doesn't mean weak magic. What magic there is in his series tends to be quite striking and potent.
He wanted to avoid what he called "chocolate cake" magic...fantasy where casting a spell is like making a dessert. You get the ingredients, stir them together, add a little heat, whammo! Chocolate cake. Or magic spell.
I do enjoy the ominous, unpredictable nature of magic in Westeros. Far more interesting and exciting than the countless D&D novels where magic only costs the price of spell components and study.
Yet, I also enjoy the magic in Harry Potter...which is extremely common, and basically a form of exotic alternate science that one needs an inborn ability to use.
Which treatment do you prefer in your fantasy fiction?
posted
I'd actually prefer it if supernatural elements were used even less in Westeros. They are becoming quite common.
I've gotten a lot of enjoyment from both extremes in fantasy, and everywhere in between. I generally like it when it isn't particularly common, however.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember correctly, OSC actually makes a point (in writing about Hart's Hope) that magic has to carry some sort of price or else it becomes superfluous to the story. (Or something like that.) I agree with this idea, at least insofar as it makes the magic more interesting and important seeming.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, if magic is fully integrated into the story, large amounts of magic can still be tastefull, like in the Alvin Maker series.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally prefer low-magic both because it makes what magic there is more striking and because the engineer in me wants explanations. This may sound odd, but I have no issue accepting that people can have X magical powers, but what does bug me is when the results of those powers aren't used meaningfully.
Much as I love the Harry Potter series there are so very many points where I'm screaming in my head about how "if they could do that why on earth arent they doing this other stuff with the same spell." or "why on earth would anyone use supernatural powers to do that."
I don't question the ability to change a porcupine into a pincushion or a rat into a goblet, but I do question why anyone would bother. I also question why anyone needs money if all the necessities of life can be conjured with the flick of a wrist... basically the effects of magic on economy and motivation are important to me.
As for the Hatrack series, consider that while "magic" is fairly commonplace, the truly powerful and impactful stuff is still quite rare and impactful.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC didn't make that point about Hart's Hope, but in his book about writing Sci fi/ fantasy. It is one of the best points in that book, actually.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it's been years, but I believe he mentions in that book that the "costly" magic system he came up with at least partially inspired the one seen in Hart's Hope...though I think originally it was "To cast a spell, one must give up a body part."
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Much as I love the Harry Potter series there are so very many points where I'm screaming in my head about how "if they could do that why on earth arent they doing this other stuff with the same spell." or "why on earth would anyone use supernatural powers to do that."
I don't question the ability to change a porcupine into a pincushion or a rat into a goblet, but I do question why anyone would bother. I also question why anyone needs money if all the necessities of life can be conjured with the flick of a wrist... basically the effects of magic on economy and motivation are important to me.
I treat Harry Potter the same way I treat the typical comic book super-hero concept...it's a Rube Goldberg contraption that just doesn't add up, so I pay more attention to emotional meaning over the logic. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've hit a pet peeve of mine. I could write a book about my opinions on this. Instead I'll put it in several as discovered by the characters. For now:
[rant on]Magic is not science!! It is not engineering. It is not psychology. It is Magic.
I totally disagree with Bradely when he said "Any science significantly advanced will appear like magic to the uninitiated."
No. You show a native how you turn on a light, what button to press. He will be greatly impressed, for a few minutes. He may even believe that the light is magical in nature. But without the rituals and showmanship of a true conjuration, they will not think you are the magician.
People will accustom themselves to fabulous facts as everyday mundane activities. Magic has powers beyond its effects on the physical world.
Magic should inspire, produce awe and wonder, should be just a glimpse beyond the mundane and physical.
Otherwise, no matter how many funny words you add to it, or pop-mystical traipings you wrap it in.
If magic is just a different science, then you regulate it in the story to a plot device. It can be much more, and is in many of the best stories I've read. I finish a Charles DeLint story and am in love with Magic all over again.
There is Magic and magic, Fate and fate, Mystery and mystery. The mystery of who killed the magician, or was it just his fate makes a nice story. How Magic based on sacred Mystery leads one person to their true of Fated Destiny is an epic. [/rant]
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Puffy Treat: I do enjoy the ominous, unpredictable nature of magic in Westros. Far more interesting and exciting than the countless D&D novels where magic only costs the price of spell components and study.
I also enjoy how magic in Westeros is slowly revealed. It really adds to a feeling of culmination that has kept me eager for the next volume. The way magic seems to grow throughout the tale me feel that if I had access to all the stories of all the people in this world, I would still pick this one as the most epic, even though it's not finished yet.
That said, I have to admit that I also thoroughly enjoyed the treatment of magic in the Dragonlance books. While the Art was much more established in this storyline (think Jedi Council vs. Yoda and Luke), I felt that the level of sacrifice required to be a mage well protected the mysticism of magic. Also, I have to admit that the overt power possible with this variety of magic appeals to me in a Dragonball Z kind of way that I may never grow out of.
I guess what I'm saying is that, in each story, there are elements to counter the anarchy of overpowerful magic. While Martin uses sparsity as a limiting mechanism, Weis & Hickman highlight themes of sacrifice and utter devotion. While I admit that Martin's style is more effective - Weis & Hickman go too far in explaining magic and it's sources in later novels, in my opinion - I think the problem lies in execution, and is not inherent in the approach.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a low magic preferer. I was reading a series recently where everything that came up, every crisis was solved by the main character "discovering" a new magical skill he had. It was annoying. No conflict, no suspense, you knew he was just going to "magic" his way out of scrapes. I got frustrated but kept reading, because the author did do a good job on other elements of the story, and I remember thinking "why don't you just make him a god?" By the end of the story, she had. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I love both types of them, to be honest. Dan, I think that using a computer to achieve modern results WOULD appear to be magic to those natives, and would look like a ritual to them.
I dislike most of the magic in the HP books because to is too much like cooking....it seems like anyone should be able to do most of it....and Squibs prove me right, sort of.
Also, OSC didn't' invent the "must cost a body part", he is just smart enough to use magic with consequences himself. Even God's had to give up body parts to gain more magic; Odin gave an eye for a drink of Wisdom, and his life (according to some accounts) on the sacred Oak tree for Runes. Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan- Lots of Science fiction book address exactly that issure (of science looking like magic to people who've never seen it). I think most of them do it well.
The one I actually remember right now is Archangel by Sharon Shinn, but I know there are others.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wayfarer Redemption Series by Sara Douglass.
**Minor Spoilers**
Actually the later books are much more interesting, because in those they've lost the music of the star dance, thus the source of their powers.
Unfortunately, she took a good thing (the loss of the powers) and used it to turn another character, heretofore thought to be powerless into an all powerful enchanter, just using a different method to access the power.
She's good enough for me to keep reading her, depite these problems. I like that not all her characters are cardboard cut-outs of "good" or "bad", but have dimension and some you thought were horrible turn out to be heroes, and vice versa. So I'm not totally dogging her here, I just wish the magic wasn't so freely available.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, it's been years, but I believe he mentions in that book that the "costly" magic system he came up with at least partially inspired the one seen in Hart's Hope...though I think originally it was "To cast a spell, one must give up a body part."
Puffy Treat is right. If I remember correctly, he was talking about a workshop where they were discussing the cost of magic. This discussion and the map of the city he drew ended up being the seeds of Hart's Hope.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that perhaps the WORST treatment of magic I've ever read was the Terry Goodkind series.
It is used about as inconsistently as possible, and the rules for magic are "whatever happens to be convenient for the author at any given time".
For instance (Spoilers)...
One primary conflict of the first book is that Richard and Kahlan can't be together romantically because her magic would render him a thrall, and there wasn't anything in the world to negate her magic.
Except that by book four or five, about two dozen different ways to negate her power have cropped into the story . It is no longer a point of drama that that can't be together, and it would be more convenient for the author if she can be occasionally rendered powerless, so that aspect of the magic of his world is basically discarded.
I don't think Goodkind even remembers half the stuff he wrote in his earlier books, he's so willing to contradict it in his later ones.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I read part of that. It was OK, but not great, IMO.
I know that OSC uses HH as a template in his writing manual as one possible way magic should have a cost, but he really fleshes it out in his writing book. He gives a number of reasons why it works better, at least for him, than a "magic-by-rote" style, and I found it to be one of the best points in that whole book.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. It is no longer a point of drama that that can't be together, and it would be more convenient for the author if she can be occasionally rendered powerless, so that aspect of the magic of his world is basically discarded. 
