• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Fantasy/Sci-Fi Discussion.

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
This thread is to mainly start discussing about books, mainly fantasy and science-fiction for any of my fellow fantasy and science-fiction geeks out there.

Today, I really wanted to discuss the concept of magic systems in books, mainly hard magic systems versus soft magic systems.

Before we discuss the difference between the two, I feel it's prudent to discuss Sanderson's Laws of Magic. Because ultimately, in fantasy, magic is a plot device, and thus magic is used both to create and resolve conflict, which is what all stories are really about.

Bear in mind, I'm not a writer, just a textbook over-analyzer. Any writers, feel free to add or correct me.

SANDERSON'S LAWS:

Sanderson's Laws of Magic, devised by my favorite fantasy author, Brandon Sanderson, describes how magic can and could be used in a fantasy setting. There are three rules, with a zeroth rule permeating each.

First Law:

An author’s ability to solve conflict in a satisfactory way with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

In other words, since magic in fantasy is a plot device, used to create and resolve conflict, it is the job of the writer to get the audience to understand the magic system well enough.

See, if the author gives no information, it runs the risk of creating plot contrivances, or Deus Ex Machinas, a specific kind of plot contrivance. Thus if your characters are in immediate danger, and at no point were you given any clues that magic could solve the problem, and all of a sudden a character pulls a spell out of their backside and saves the day, you'd rightly say, "Well, that's a little convenient."

And leaves you with an unsatisfying solution to the conflict at the time. So, since magic is a plot device, it needs to be treated with the respect that that a plot device deserves.

A good plot device moves the story forward in a satisfying way. For example, a specific kind of plot device, made by the master of the short story, Anton Chekov, called the Chekov's Gun, and he explained it like this:

If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.

Since in a story, you only have a finite amount of time to grab the audience's attention, every detail you give as a writer is crucial to moving the plot forward, establishing character moments, or world building.

Thus, I'd categorize magic in fantasy as either a MacGuffin or a Chekov's Gun. If you give a detail about the magic, that in itself is moving the plot along, building the story, establishing character moments, and so on.

Thus, people find it unsatisfying when a character pulls a rifle out of nowhere and blasts the bad guy away if there was no establishment beforehand, the same way they find a character whipping a spell or ability out of nowhere where it never has been established before.

So thus, I feel it's the job of a fantasy writer to treat magic with the respect it deserves, and treat it as a plot device that moves the plot along in a satisfying way.

As Brandon Sanderson said:

If we simply let ourselves develop new rules every time our characters are in danger, we will end up creating fiction that is not only unfulfilling and unexciting, but just plain bad.

Second Law:

Limitations are more interesting than the powers themselves.

In other words, what's more interesting to us as readers or purveyors of fantasy is the limitations in what the characters can do. For example, Superman.

We all know that Superman can do a wide range of things as we can easily derive from the comics. But that isn't what makes Superman interesting. It's what he can't do that creates the real tension in a Superman comic.

For example, a common limitation of Superman's powers is that he becomes incredibly weak when exposed to Kryptonite. Why do so many Superman stories revolve around him being exposed to Kryptonite?

Because it'd be boring if he just one shotted the enemy!

The other thing that makes Superman interesting, and is a limitation, is his code of ethics. Thus, Superman is what is limitations are, not what he can do.

Another example is the magic system in Wheel of Time. They manipulate the common Aristotelian elements Fire, Air, Water, Earth, and an added element of Spirit. Not an original concept, and the magic itself really has no strict hard limitations.

Except that it takes time to weave a spell, and those who use it go insane. Now that's interesting and what I would define as a limitation.

The power itself is a plot device, but it's the logical consequences and limitations, and dare I say, conflict that the magic brings in that's more interesting to us.

Third Law:

Expand on what you already have before adding in something new.

This directly ties into character moments, moving the plot forward, and building on the world. Adding in something new without establishing something in the narrative just seems like it was pulled from where the sun don't shine.

But if you expand on what you've already established, you can use a spell or ability in a creative way to resolve a conflict in a satisfying way.

That's not to say you can't add in anything new, though. You can, there just needs to be some establishment beforehand, like foreshadowing and such.

Basically, I feel it's more interesting when writers expand on a concept of a magic system, than it is to just keeping adding to it, only giving the bare idea that the magic can do the thing you want it to do.

Zeroth Law:

Always err on the side of what's awesome.

Magic should be cool in a fantasy story, as a plot device, that's part of what draws people into a fantasy story. For example, in Sanderson's series The Stormlight Archive, Sanderson himself said the inspiration came from using ridiculously huge swords that you can summon out of air, and can cut through anything, even the very soul.

Of course, my breakdown of ridiculous fantasy swords in Zelda should point out that some fantasy designs are impractical, but a good writer can say, "How can make this something that a rational, pragmatic person would use?"

So yeah, if there's a rational, logical explanation, like in the Stormlight Archive, that the swords themselves aren't made out of any normal material, are inherently magical in nature, and that has been established beforehand, I have no problem with ridiculously huge swords that can cut through anything.

Even in my favorite manga, Berserk, Guts wields a ridiculously huge sword. But in the story, it's clearly shown that normal weapons don't work against Apostles, they shatter. The Dragonslayer was the only weapon that could withstand the might. Also, it was established that the smith who made it, Godo, was commissioned to make a sword to slay a dragon, and even he said it was too impractical to use.

So in story justification is sufficient for me to give some fantasy designs a pass, same with magic systems. Contrived explanations outside the canon I don't believe hold water.

Again, if an aspect wasn't added in a story, the reader should operate under the assumption that it wasn't an important enough detail for the writer to include. Remember, if a rifle is hung over the mantle in the first chapter, then in a later chapter, it absolutely has to go off at some point.

So that's the rules of a magic system, and I find the good stories often adhere to the previously stated laws in one way or another, whether they are strictly defined, or a bit more loosey-goosey.

Now we get into the hard versus soft magic systems.

SOFT MAGIC SYSTEM:

A soft magic system I'd define as a magic system that isn't quite fully understood by the reader in what it can do, thus it doesn't really have strictly defined limitations in the canon of the story.

For example, the magic system in Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, and such.

Absolutely can be employed to great effect in using magic as a plot device. Again, the 1st Law applies here, the writer's ability to resolve conflict using magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic. In other words, it relies on the skill of the writer.

HARD MAGIC SYSTEM:

A hard magic system is strictly defined in what it can do, and has strict limitations on what it can't do.

For example, The Stormlight Archive, the manga/anime Hunter X Hunter, The Dragonlance Chronicles, and The Dresden Files.

Personally, hard magic systems I find to be more interesting than soft magic systems, because it forces the characters to use magic in more creative ways to resolve conflicts.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?:

So that's my little over-analysis of magic systems in fantasy.

I mean this thread to start a discussion, not just on magic systems, but sci-fi and fantasy in general.

Let me know what you think!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom