Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2005-07-28 19:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: cranky
Entry tags:fantasy rants: summer 2005, world-building: magic

Having a sense of mystery in your magic
The “keeping magic mystical” rant. Since I’ve already done rants on understandable, rule-filled, kind-of-scientific systems of magic and the pitfalls I’ve seen with them, here’s some advice in the opposite direction.



1) Watch the vocabulary. The mere act of explaining what magic does or what people believe about it does not automatically make that magic less mystical (see point 2 for examples). However, the language that many fantasy authors adopt during those explanations often reveals a strong bias in favor of science—even when the magic is supposed to be completely unpredictable and chaotic.

Some terms are obvious giveaways, like “hypothesis” and “theory,” but the occurrences can be subtler than that. For example, do mages perform “experiments” with magic in your world? How do they do that if magic is not comprehended, is in fact beyond comprehension? Assuming they knew how to set up an experiment, they still wouldn’t know how to interpret the results they found. And if something different happened every time, the experiments would ultimately be useless. They would either have to give them up or name them something else and work out a different way of dealing with them.

Are there “laws?” Why? (See point 6). Most of the time, “laws” for magic are not special rules unique to it, but are meant in the sense of natural or moral laws. Magic is supposed to be unlike philosophy and science, yet the way that people relate to it is in the sense of philosophy and science. I’m left puzzled. It doesn’t matter to me if the author does want her magic to be scientific, but too often this half-mystical, half-scientific compromise comes off like an attempt to imply that there are “rules” behind the magic without coming up with the effort of making the rules.

Other terms you’ll probably want to look at critically: “universe” (odd for a culture that does not have advanced astronomy), “frequency,” “vibration,” “wavelength,” and terms of measurement like “volt.”

2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with mythological explanations. This is the ground that many fantasy authors seem to neglect, even when magic comes from the gods. Either it’s pure science or it’s “just the way it is,” as though the people of this world lack any normal curiosity and will just bob their heads up and down tamely in front of a lack of answers.

What’s wrong with the explanations that people in our own world used before science took over? The sun was a god’s eye, or the egg from which the world hatched, or the chariot of Apollo. It wasn’t a giant flaming ball of gas, and it wasn’t “just there.” Depending on your fantasy culture’s religion and mythology, one magical phenomenon might have multiple explanations. People could argue over them the way they argue over doctrine, and for much the same reasons. It’d be a more interesting twist on the old idea of arguments between magicians and the churches than the usual “they are evil and wish to persecute us!” angle.

Want magic to be mystical? Relax. Stop thinking that you need the characters to shut up about inborn magic because they don’t understand genetics. A god choosing that family line will work fine. And in this world, it could be literally true—which isn’t really that common. (See point 5). If your world has not gone through its own Renaissance and Enlightenment, they are not going to have a Terran attitude towards science. A lack of technology isn’t enough, if apparently everyone in the world thinks like we do about the natural world and demands the same kind of answers. They’ll have their own answers.

3) Beckon the grotesque. I’ve wondered lately why descriptive passages on magic in so many fantasy novels do nothing for me anymore. There are doubtless multiple reasons, but I think part of it is that, even when the authors are writing about destructive magic or evil inhuman creatures like the Unseelie Court, they describe the effects of magic as beautiful, or pretty. That tends in the direction of fluff if the author isn’t careful. If she is, it’ll still call up very similar pictures from a lot of other fantasy books.

I’ve been thrilled and felt wonder from descriptions of the grotesque, however. I still haven’t managed to finish Perdido Street Station, but the descriptions of New Crobuzon, especially the beetle-headed khepri, are a lot more intriguing than yet another scene of moonlit pools and silver wolves and unicorns. And my candidate for most awe-inspiring magical talent I’ve read about this year isn’t the king-and-the-land magic in The Fall of the Kings, although it was beautifully described. It’s the ability to grow cocoons on one’s palms and hatch insects from them that I read about in The Etched City. I’m also enjoying the three brothers nested in each other like Russian dolls from Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town, although that’s been slow reading for other reasons.

Many fluffy magical systems that blur into each other across fantasy books share common touchstones—“beautiful” animals like horses and wolves, images of light from moon and sun, natural elements like water and fire that we’ve been trained to admire, brilliant colors. Replacing even a few of those touchstones may lead to the sense of the strange, the weird, the alienness that we don’t understand and recoil from. Insects, disease, filth, blood, and mutated and decaying bodies are much less often terms of fluffy magic. Try beckoning the grotesque into your magical system and see what it does.

4) Lean on natural mysteries, too. One part of fantasy which I find fascinating is the way that it often offers explanations for things which are mysteries in our own world. Where do people go after they die? Most afterlives in fantasy get described in detail, so that the characters can find out. Sex is harnessed within various constructs, whether those are arranged marriages or a society-specific system of sexual orientation. The reason that bad things happen to good people is because there’s a Dark Lord out there making them happen, or because there’s not a rightful king on the throne. Even the motives of minor characters or villains usually become transparent to the hero. Though the narrative may call them “profound mysteries,” it isn’t content to leave them that way. There must be explanations—not just of cultural attitudes, but of the one real and ultimate truth. If two sides conflict over that truth, one will be right and the other wrong. There is one right way to believe about life, to treat men and women, to feel about suicide, to defeat the villain.

Oh, come on. There’s a treasure trove of mysteries that could help serve your mystical magic system. Why are you going about explaining them all?

A system of necromancy which raises the dead in a way that the living can’t even comprehend is going to be infinitely scarier than one where the reader gets a detailed explanation from the first page of how a necromancer draws ghosts back and puts them into zombie bodies. It will also lead to a confirmation of necromancy as “dark” magic, in the sense of obscure, and lead to the impression that its practitioners must be crazy, to be messing around with this mad, unknowable magic.

A character who takes the place of a woman in a specific magic ritual isn’t allowed to take a man’s place in the next one, even if it’s a different ritual. Why not, though? If sex is such a mystery, surely it’s not as simple as Tab A going into Slot B. Hell, we know it’s not that simple outside magic, so why should it be so inside magic?

Why couldn’t the mystical reason for things going wrong be far deeper than just a Dark Lord coming back from the dead or the wrong king sitting on the throne? It might not have to do with humanity at all. And if it takes more effort to solve than just fighting a civil war and putting the rightful king on the throne, more power to you.

5) Put a sense of awe and wonder back in the magic’s users. There are people in our world who regard thunderstorms, earthquakes, and even computers with more awe and wonder than the average citizen of a fantasy world shows to its magic. Magic is supposed to be marvelous, but it sure doesn’t seem to provide many marvels. People use it casually if it’s familiar, despite all the dire warnings about what could go wrong and the lectures about natural balance. (This is the part where the characters start acting like they know they’re the main characters in a book and not going to die, because they use magic when it would be perfectly reasonable not to, given the danger supposedly attached to it). If it’s unfamiliar, then people still don’t react with awe, but with disgust and fear—which the author often uses to propel the frightened or disgusted people into a mob that will hunt down the innocent mages using it. The mages themselves, of course, know the magic isn’t dangerous.

There goes the awe and wonder again.

I think this might be one of the less obvious reasons that so many authors aim for quantity over quality, such as heroes killing ten thousand people with their magic. They want readers to be awed, and they know that magic being common and well-understood isn’t going to do it. So they go for size. The magic must be awe-inspiring if it kills ten thousand people, right?

Well, not really, especially when characters show no reaction to that other than “Good job!” or a few moments of horror that vanish soon because, well, they were enemies, right?

If you want your magic to inspire awe and wonder, then write your characters reacting to it in that way. Yes, even your mages. If magic is mystical and can’t be understood in the sense of science, they are not going to react to it like scientists, sorry. Come up with how they would react to something that did wow them, and write them acting and speaking that way.

6) Strip the magic of moral laws. Magic is often inherently “good” or “evil,” even in fantasy worlds where authors say that it’s only power. Necromancy and magic involving blood are frequent choices for the evil or black side of magic. Healing and elemental magic are frequent choices for the good or white side of magic. When characters encounter evil magic, then they feel “cold” or “slimy,” while good magic gets described in terms of light, beauty, color—well, you can go look at the list of “beautiful” terms that I gave you in point 3 again.

Ultimately, I don’t think this will work if you want your magic to be beyond human comprehension. That doesn’t mean that it might not have moral laws. But if its moral laws coincide exactly with humanity’s and the whole natural force of the world gets outraged when someone uses magic to commit murder, then that’s pretty much saying that the code humanity’s picked for itself is the right one, and so why shouldn’t magic be perfectly comprehensible?

Perhaps magic’s laws are along the lines of “The green stone must remain to the left of the black stone at all times, or bad things will happen.” Perhaps the magic changes its mind frequently. Or perhaps magic is totally amoral, in the sense of plagues and earthquakes and tsunamis. There are explanations to be had for those things, certainly, which may be something you don’t want to saddle your magic with. But there aren’t moral reasons, in the sense of “Oh, that tsunami destroyed those people over there because they stoned a woman to death.”

Think long and hard about your world before you put good and evil magic in. The more magic shares with humanity, the less mystical it usually is.

7) Realize that some systems and symbols are simply more overplayed than others. It’s been a long time since I found inspiring mysticism in a King Arthur retelling, or a Celtic-themed fantasy, or a Tolkien knockoff. If authors pick up the same symbols that everyone else has used and toss them into the story without adding anything else of their own, then it’s tired, not mysterious.

Your system of magic doesn’t have to be totally and completely original, but if you choose symbols that everyone else has already heard of, and especially if you choose to explain them in the same old way, then why should anyone approach them with an open-eyed sense of wonder? We already know the rules of this system of magic. We’ve heard them from a hundred other books that chose the same rules. I know what a mother goddess will do, and that elemental magic relies on fire, water, earth, and air (with sometimes heart or spirit thrown in for a tiny bit of variety), and that necromancy is bad, and that unicorns are a symbol of good, and that there’s a connection between the king and the land. I might still think it’s a good story, but nothing in it is a mystery to me.

Ultimately, mystical magic has challenges in it that “scientific” magic doesn’t. You’re struggling to keep alive not a system of rules, but a certain attitude in which awe and wonder mix with attempts at explanation that never reveal more than a tiny part of the whole. It’s hard work. Just be prepared for it to be hard work, and resist the attempt to take shortcuts.



That rant was hard, because it goes so much against my own inclinations. *whines*

And now I have to do a rant on creating a sense of the forbidden next. *whines again*




(Post a new comment)


[info]snapes_angel
2005-07-28 11:21 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I don't know if you would have fun with mine. Someone came up with a magic prison to incarcerate this really evil person (think Voldemort except instead of you-know what, my antagonist steals the life force of others) using the energy of a demon to strengthen the spell. He assumed that the demno and the imprisoned would be inactive and helpless - quiescent - for the five hundred year duration - but he was an idiot. *snicker* Although right now I'm stuck on a game of dice. XP

(Reply to this)


[info]storm_seeker
2005-07-29 12:30 am UTC (link)
Thank you :)

I especially liked point 7 *nod* and can I take it that you care more for "scientific" or "explained" magic rather than a dash of the "awe/wonder/mystical" variety?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:24 am UTC (link)
I don't know. It depends. I've read a few books with elaborate magical systems I liked, and many more I didn't, because the explanations were things I'd already seen done to death (like a dragon choosing the heroine because she's Just That Special). I suspect that I'm more in favor of systems than mysticism in general, but systems that draw on little-used mythologies and systems that don't rely on genetic magic or one protagonist having all the gifts it's possible to have interest me more.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mushroomhunterd
2005-07-29 12:31 am UTC (link)
Right now I have to get my necromancer to stop thinking about his magic scientifically. He came across a book with the 'scientific method' in it and it's been screwing up his work ever since. Getting him (and me) to stop thinking scientifically is going to be difficult -_-

So, basically, thanks for the rant.

-[)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:28 am UTC (link)
You're welcome.

I think it's possible that, if the character has encountered information that encourages him to think about his magic scientifically, and that information was introduced plausibly into the story, it's not a big deal. But it would depend on how comprehensive the information was. I can't see a character getting far in a scientific approach to magic without understanding all the basis of the scientific method.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]zekk_skywalk
2005-07-29 12:32 am UTC (link)
When characters encounter evil magic, then they feel “cold” or “slimy,” while good magic gets described in terms of light, beauty, color—well, you can go look at the list of “beautiful” terms that I gave you in point 3 again.

Also goes into the area of, if "evil" magic is so displeasing, why would anyone do it? If "good" magic is so easy and makes you feel so euphoric, why isn't everyone doing it? One of the reasons I'm such a Star Warsaphile is because the "Dark Side" is the one that makes you feel all good and powerful and strong whereas the "Light Side" is difficult and demanding on your morality and emotions. Lets see something where the "evil" necromancers show other magic users that raising the dead gives you a nice, powerful feeling whereas a "good" healer to the living feels drained and empty after helping someone...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:30 am UTC (link)
There's a very faint echo of that in the way that some good magic is described as addictive. Even then, though, the hero usually manages to fight free of his addiction and take no permanent damage from it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]digoraccoon
2005-07-29 12:52 am UTC (link)
Right on! Useful tips for describing magic. I was reading a book on dragons the other day and I think it mentioned something to the effect of your 3rd and 4th points. It also went to say that dragon magic doesn't have to be city incinerating destruction, it could be subtle things like hiding one's senf, locating shiney treasure, or even assisting their ability to fly.

I like subtle magic. For example your mention of growing a coccoon in the palm of your hand.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:31 am UTC (link)
The neat thing about the cocoon magic was that it wasn't explained, or even referred to, for the rest of the book. In fact, the character had magic of a different kind that he used to greater effect later. But the cocoon magic was the more vivid and startling example.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ursulav
2005-07-29 12:53 am UTC (link)
THANK YOU. This is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons that I find fantasy written by horror writers far more compelling than fantasy written by fantasy writers half the time--they understand the psychological power of things half-hidden, and don't generally feel the need to explain the magic system down to a set of handy D&D rules.

Probably on a related topic, it'd be nice sometimes to have just ONE of something. To use an example I've used before, you can't have the Big Bad Wolf anymore, the Ur-Wolf, the only wolf that ever needs to exist and who wants your giblets for lunch--you have to have a race of ancient telepathic shapeshifters demonized by an ignorant peasantry/controlling religion, who worship the great moon goddess of Blah and live in harmony with chickens. And while that can be done well, sometimes it'd be nice to have the Big Bad Wolf as an option.

I occasionally wonder if it's a sign of insecurity on the part of fantasy worldbuilding--as if, out of desperation to prove that This Is A Cool And Unique And Internally Consistent World, Goddamnit, far too much fantasy has bent over backwards to make sure that nobody has to suspend their disbelief more than a smidge.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:34 am UTC (link)
The books I've found wildest and strangest in the past little while have all been by horror writers or writers who also write SF. I'm not sure why. I'd hate to think that fantasy has become provinicial and too inward-looking, given how wide a genre it can be, but sometimes it feels that way.

To use an example I've used before, you can't have the Big Bad Wolf anymore, the Ur-Wolf, the only wolf that ever needs to exist and who wants your giblets for lunch--you have to have a race of ancient telepathic shapeshifters demonized by an ignorant peasantry/controlling religion, who worship the great moon goddess of Blah and live in harmony with chickens.

*snicker* True. I'd add that I prefer to have the One be something that isn't the protagonist, having seen a few too many 'last survivor of a magical race' stories.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

excellent rant :D :D :D
[info]___sasuka
2005-07-29 12:58 am UTC (link)
I recall you making a post about more unusual fantasy creatures (the black dog that follows people, something to do with not very nice unicorns) but unfortunately, I can't find it. Do you know the link?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: excellent rant :D :D :D
[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:37 am UTC (link)
This post is it, I think: the Other Species Equal-Time Day one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: excellent rant :D :D :D
[info]___sasuka
2005-07-30 03:12 am UTC (link)
ah, thanks.

I added you. Could you add me back? :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fadethecat
2005-07-29 01:31 am UTC (link)
Hmm. Good example of magic done well: Bujold's Curse of Chalion and sequels. Magic isn't dripping all over the place, but when it shows up... well. It's freaky. Even "good" magic is freaky. And the family of gods hits a very nice blend between "Well, yes, that's the Mother, she does X" and "...so all these young men pledge themselves to the Daughter. Which makes sense, and yet..."

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:38 am UTC (link)
I loved the magic in Curse, though more for the Bastard than the seasonal family. I still haven't finished Paladin of Souls because it seems to be repeating the first book's plot, and I've heard the newest one has king-and-the-land stuff. So right now I'm kind of lurking on Chalion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dwg
2005-07-29 02:00 am UTC (link)
3) Beckon the grotesque

Some of the best stuff I've read is no-holds-barred disgusting. It kinda helps that I prefer that style of writing, but honestly, after getting the fiftieth description about Some Heroine's glowing eyes when the Goddess has touched her and all the Wonder and Awe it inspires, it's nice to read something like Simon R. Green's Novels of the Nightside (not near as good as Jim Butcher, but still pretty good. I just wish they were longer) and in Something From The Nightside, when the hero is in a time-rift, he sees the future and there's nobody in existence except Razor Eddie - and that's because Razor Eddie made a deal with the Gods that he wouldn't ever die until he got his work done - so a bunch of pissed off bugs used Eddie as their host. Since he didn't die, they could lay eggs in him over and over again, and they'd hatch and crawl their way out of him. It was gross, but wonderful.

Douglas Clegg's You Come When I Call You is still one of the most disturbing books I've ever read, because it really holds nothing back on the "Dude, what the fuck? EEEWWW!!!" stuff about a demon trying to incarnate itself in human(ish) form and what it does to a small town in the middle of the California desert.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-07-29 03:41 am UTC (link)
Green's other fantasy is both imaginative and disgusting (I haven't read the Nightside novels). He's not the best writer out there, but he has this kind of boundless breathlessness; he's not content with inventing one monster and then using it over and over again.

I'll have to check out the other novels you recommend; they sound neat.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dwg
2005-07-29 04:01 am UTC (link)
Likewise with some of the books you talk about. I know I've got my eye on The Autumn Castle and a couple of other Simon R. Green books (though, they're actually hard to find in my corner of the universe). Now, if only my "to be read" pile wasn't so damned big, I'd be set.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wanderingbhikkh
2005-07-29 03:16 am UTC (link)
I just violated ponit 5.

(Reply to this)


[info]secant
2005-07-29 03:59 am UTC (link)
Hiho. I love the way you rant, so unless you strongly object I shall friend you.

What I'd like to see more often is magic that isn't perfectly reproducible. Even in mystical systems, too often the mage can get reliable results from her fickle, ever-changing power source time after time after time, with no surprises. If it really isn't science, then I'd like it to be something that every so often works in a way you didn't expect, or at least looks different than it did the last time. (Also, I like what you say about not applying the metaphors of science to nonscientific magic. Terms like "mystical energy" and "a blast of magical force" always annoy me. Those are physics words, not something you'd find in mythology.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]duckmole86
2005-07-29 08:11 am UTC (link)
Goodness. You call yourself secant. Freaky. Are you a villain? Or do you just love math? Or does it all add up to the same?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]secant
2005-07-29 10:47 am UTC (link)
Bit of both, actually. Although I'm not very good at villainy. My evil plans to take over the world using math never take, which is a shame because they're darn good plans. Like the one where I dominate the globe by reciting all the multiples of seventeen. Turns out there are infinitely many, who knew, and that some of the later ones are quite difficult to say in one breath. Now, the plan to plunge the world into chaos by stealing all the numbers off of all the bills in the US treasury would have worked. And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those kids. And their dog.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]seawolf10
2005-07-29 04:17 am UTC (link)
Looks at #3...

Well, I've got that down pat. A protag who can flay or debone his enemies with a spell makes for much more interesting reading than a fluffy-bunny mage.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]the_s_guy
2005-07-29 06:07 am UTC (link)
I wonder what a squeamish battle-mage would be like. Apart from nauseated most of the time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]duckmole86
2005-07-29 08:11 am UTC (link)
Or a squeamish healer. Ditto on the nauseated part, of course.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rhjunior
2005-07-30 12:40 pm UTC (link)
Or best of all, a squeamish necromancer. Of course, that'd be more for humor than anything.

"I did it, I created a Crawling Hand, look--- AHH, I'M TOUCHING IT I'M TOUCHING IT I'M TOUCHING IT!!!!!"

More seriously, one wonders what the underlying motivation would be for mucking about with necromancy (if not for nefarious purposes).... Perhaps as a branch of healing medicine--- reanimating and reattaching severed limbs, creating an artificial womb for an unborn child, and so forth? Reversing necrosis and gangrene? Retrieving memories from the brain of a dead man?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]duckmole86
2005-07-29 08:18 am UTC (link)
5) Honestly, I personally would be much more freaked out by a gruesome/evil death for one or two people, as compared to ten thousand. Ten thousand is a number. One or two people are *characters*. You can care about a small number, but a group is just that.

Anyhow, as much as you hated writing it, Limyaael, you did an excellent job with this rant. It too is going in my memories, mostly so that I can reread it for the plotbunnies that are too tired to leap high enough to be snagged.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sailor_tech
2005-07-29 11:05 am UTC (link)
I believe the quote is:

One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Now, a cookie to anybody who can identify the author.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]angelhedgie
2005-07-30 03:49 pm UTC (link)
Eh, Unka Joe is sorta old hat, don't you think?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sailor_tech
2005-07-30 10:44 pm UTC (link)
you'd be surprised at how many people are not familiar with history.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khilari
2005-07-29 09:52 am UTC (link)
Hi, I've been reading your journal for a while. It's been very helpful, although I now want to describe one of my characters as having hair like aa raven's wing because it's black, ragged and badly in need of a wash.

In the book I'm writing magic is based either on superstitions that actually work or on getting a spirit to do what you want. Since religion consists of worshipping 'good' spirits and witchcraft consists of being served by 'bad' spirits this leaves a lot of grey areas. Especislly as the spirits themselves have no moral code.

I do have rules, they just apply to what spirits can do, not what they will do.

(Reply to this)


[info]traffic_cone
2005-07-29 10:04 am UTC (link)
On point #3, the grotesque, I'm reminded of "The Golden Key"; there's painting-based magic, which sounds awfully fluffy like that, but the first time we see it used, it's to mutilate and kill a man (eventually, with a bit of additional "whoops, it didn't work the first time", and a good chapter's worth of leaving it all to your imagination).

The tone stays pretty consistent from there, and it was enough to put me off painting for a while.

(Reply to this)

Mystical magic and whatnot
[info]l_clausewitz
2005-07-29 03:48 pm UTC (link)
Oh. #3 and #6. That's why all those magic systems all seem so similar. They all use the same method to invoke imageries of light and darkness. Now I see where that's going....

Most of the magic systems I've worked out have been based on things like Roman augury and Chinese mysticism. One thing I've learned from them, and one point you've mentioned in an earlier rant but seems to have missed out here, is that to create a sense of mysticism it may be a good idea to blur the distinction between "true" magic and charlatanism. This is somewhat implied in points #4 and #5, but perhaps not in a way that would be sufficiently succinct and clear for everyone.

I'm at a loss about a brief, concise formulation for this principle. I was thinking about Magic does not always work true, but it seems to lack the more down-to-earth feel of There is no way to know whether an instance of magic is truly magic or just a piece of coincidence. Perhaps There is no way to distinguish magic from coincidence could work as well, but I don't like its overly skeptical tone.

Well, I guess I should leave the subject to the more experienced rant-maker.

On a sidenote, I really think this rant straddles the border between fanatsy and magical realism. I've never found an image as funny and evoking at the same time as Gabriel Garcia Marquez's depiction of an angel on a beach in A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings. The angel is old, decrepit, and grimy, with lice scrambling all over his wings, yet he felt so arcane and holy precisely because some of his aspects were so mundane like that.

Not that I've ever really cared about genre boundaries. I've found that my writing always wilts and withers whenever I try to obey genre conventions--I don't do cross-genre by choice, simply because I can't write any other way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Mystical magic and whatnot
[info]coffeedryad
2005-07-29 04:00 pm UTC (link)
Hmm.
"Sometimes magic is coincidence. Sometimes coincidence is magic." maybe?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Mystical magic and whatnot
[info]kgbooklog
2005-07-29 08:40 pm UTC (link)
Like in Edghill's Bast novels. The heroine believes in magic, but they all could be coincidences. And because of this, there are fewer of them than normal (especially for mysteries).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]bneuensc
2005-07-29 07:12 pm UTC (link)
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with mythological explanations.

There's no reason magic and religion even have to be thought of as separate things. And I'm not even talking about D&D-style "divine magic" where you do stuff by praying to your god for help.

3) Beckon the grotesque.

Having written an article for Strange Horizons on human sacrifice, I'm now fascinated by blood-magic. *^_^* Combine that with point 6, and one of these days I'm going to have a story (a la Marella Sands' novels) where blood-based power, even human sacrifice, is NOT evil.

(Reply to this)


[info]tamerterra
2005-07-29 07:51 pm UTC (link)
"6) Strip the magic of moral laws. Magic is often inherently “good” or “evil,” even in fantasy worlds where authors say that it’s only power. Necromancy and magic involving blood are frequent choices for the evil or black side of magic. Healing and elemental magic are frequent choices for the good or white side of magic. When characters encounter evil magic, then they feel “cold” or “slimy,” while good magic gets described in terms of light, beauty, color—well, you can go look at the list of “beautiful” terms that I gave you in point 3 again."

Oopsie. Well, not really. I have one character who thinks that book-learnt magic is evil and wrong while elemental magic is fine and dandy (but should still be restricted), but furthur on he changes his opinion to "All magic is evil and wrong, unless I'm using it. Because I'm the only trustworthy one."


"Perhaps magic’s laws are along the lines of “The green stone must remain to the left of the black stone at all times, or bad things will happen.”"

I've got a one of those too. But there is a reason for it! Actually... It's more of an excuse to have another character say "Oh, now look! You broke the world again!"

(Reply to this)

I've mentioned something of my magic in a previous comment on another rant.
[info]slimshadowen
2005-07-30 05:25 am UTC (link)
I prefer the concept of the mystic, unpredictable magic. Science is science; magic should be magic.

It's just damn hard to do, so thank you for your rant...

(Reply to this)


[info]woodburner
2005-07-30 07:51 am UTC (link)
And my candidate for most awe-inspiring magical talent I’ve read about this year isn’t the king-and-the-land magic in The Fall of the Kings, although it was beautifully described. It’s the ability to grow cocoons on one’s palms and hatch insects from them that I read about in The Etched City.

Ooooh, The Etched City made me absolutely swoon. It was the most beautifully grotesque piece of work I have ever encountered. And damn if magic wasn't full of a sense of awe and mystery in that one. A damn good reference for anyone trying to add more of that element.

If magic is mystical and can’t be understood in the sense of science, they are not going to react to it like scientists, sorry.

I'm not so sure that's the best comparison there - since scientists are usually full of awe and wonder xP And really, it's pretty much the same kind of wonder - awe at witnessing the universe's mysteries at work.

I don't think that scientific magic and mysterious magic are neccesarily mutally exclusive, either, since much of our own universe itself is unknown and, at present at least, unpredictable by science.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Scientific Attitude vs. Mystical Magical Attitude
[info]thedeadqueen
2005-08-01 09:26 pm UTC (link)
Good point.

Yeah, scientists do have the same sort of wonder, and they aren't yet able to understand and predict our universe. (And they often don't believe it's possible to fully understand it either, interestingly enough.)

It's the rest of their attitude that doesn't work for mystical magic systems. Like that everything in the universe can be "explained" by formulating an equation around it...or that everything in the universe follows certain rules which humans can, at least in principle, understand...there's probably other things too, which I can't think of right now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kgbooklog
2005-07-30 07:18 pm UTC (link)
The problem with magic that isn't humanly understandable is the difficulty (bordering on impossible) of not using it as a plot device. Like having the characters blather on and on about how difficult and unpredictable magic is, and then have them say its easier to move a city than correct a map.

And here's Rowan's magic rant from Kirstein's The Lost Steersman:

"This, this is what I hate about magic! Every time one talks about magic, it's all ifs and maybes -- it's all guesses, and guesses built on other guesses and hypotheses based purely upon guesses with anything, anything at all, possible -- there are no parameters! There have to be parameters! Anything that happens, any event, process, initiation, conclusion, any occurrence at all, must take place within a framework of delimited possibility. Reality is not infinitely fluid; if it were, the world would be a very different place than it is. Magic does have parameters. It must have."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

mystical systems with perameters
[info]thedeadqueen
2005-08-01 09:31 pm UTC (link)
Magic can be mystical, impossible to understand, and completely unpredictable and still have perameters. In other words...a few things are impossible. (That's what the boundaries are for.) Anything that's not impossible can happen, and probably will at some point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]farmercuerden
2005-08-01 02:41 pm UTC (link)
Point 6 reminds me of Taltos, which I read recently (You recommend very good authors. Simon R. Green, Brust, and Kay have all been great. (Finding Berg a bit of a slow read, but that's probably just a little too much resonance with the time I took that job on a farm with accomodation and had real trouble escaping. Long story, not particularly traumatic, but, well, there's a certain point where you're working such long hours and only get a day off every week or two (subject to change on a whim) which does seem to sap you of all individuality since you can't do any of the things that makes you unique in the time you have 'ere you sleep... bit too much resonance there with Seyonne.) Anyway, there's a discussion of witchcraft's numerlogy, how a certain love potion requires exactly three pinches of a certain herb - size of the pinches doesn't matter, but that there are three does - and so on. The numerology aspect being so important seemed a particularly effective way to imply rules to the magic, but rules that are by no means scientific.

(Reply to this)


[info]waterfall8484
2005-10-12 09:21 pm UTC (link)
Thank you, this was really interesting! Do you mind if I friend you? I came here via [info]pauraques GOF discussion, and became interested in some of your other entries as well as the Malfoy one.

(Reply to this)


[info]naodrith
2005-10-17 05:40 pm UTC (link)
Regarding point 6, about morality in magic...I love playing with this. In my trilogy, it's the necromancers who can save the world, even though the gods long ago declared that branch of magic forbidden. And my healer? Just as likely to break bones as she is to mend them.

(Reply to this)

Volt?
[info]karenrei
2006-03-16 06:46 pm UTC (link)
'and terms of measurement like “volt.”'

Have you really seen that? I'd just love to see someone mention the number of joules that they pump into a fireball ;)

(Reply to this)


[info]celticwren
2006-11-19 03:02 am UTC (link)
Are you going to put all of your rants into a book? :)

I seem to get stuck when I write something one way and then read soemthing that makes me unsure of what I am doing. But for NaNo you can't stop writing! I guess I'll be doing a lot of rewriting!

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…