It's a kind of magic
A few things bleeding together in my head have congealed into this post, and if that analogy hasn't completely squicked you away from reading any further, I will now tell you what they are:
Let me begin my rumination by stating my position: I think magic needs to have a system to make it an interesting and useful part of a story.
This is an entirely subjective opinion, but it's my preference; I complain often and loudly about "magic realism", because to my mind, it lacks any semblance of realism. The magic happens "just because", obeys no rules, serves no purpose (beyond usually illustrating neatly the author's thematic point) and is, I feel, the equivalent of scattering glitter on a craft project: a cheap and nasty way to make people go, "ooooh, pretty!" Mostly, this plugs into one of my deep reading needs, that being that I need to be able to interact with the world of the book - I need to understand what is happening without being told what it means, and I need to be able to predict possible futures as I go. If I do not have sufficient information about the world, I cannot do that, and I am not fully engaged. I get bored. I wander off. (This happens often with sci-fi that keeps pulling out gadgets and/or capabilities, so you never know whether this is tense because they're about to get stuck or actually no worries at all; or those bemusing fights in the Transformers movies where one robot punches a bit off another robot and I go, "...was that bit important?" It's like Agatha Christie: if you can't predict who the murderer was because she's left out a vital piece of information, what is the point?)
To add something a little more objective to that stance, I would suggest that if the magic has no rules, that's a surefire way to get into arguments with your readers. ("But why couldn't he just magic his way out of it?" Arguably, because the system doesn't allow it isn't any less irritating than JUST BECAUSE, but at least if you've explained the system beforehand, clever readers might figure that one out for themselves and not ask the question in the first place. Ideally, of course, you want the system to be so inherent and intuitive that it's obvious why he couldn't and the question isn't even considered.)
THAT SAID, there's a big difference between having a system, and having a gamebook. What you need to know and what your reader needs to know are two wildly different sets of data, and if the structure of necessary information starts to resemble a scaffold inhibiting the view of a famous landmark... well, you get pissed-off tourists.
Ms Jemisin talks about the magic of LeGuin and Tolkien, and I wish to state that Chez Dee are wholehearted and vocal proponents of that style of magic. Nothing gets our blood rushing like epic and non-visible magical battles of will. There should, we avow, be more of it. But still, in those books, there are things than you can, and things that you can't, and things that you might if you try hard / cheat / are willing to die for it. And what is that but a system?
As a thought exercise, I pondered how I might encompass those system in a statement, and wondered about things like "Magic is the way by which a person's will is enforced upon the world. The more you understand, the more likely it is to work the way you intended. Understanding encompasses both empirical and intuitive." Or even, "Magic is physics and logics at the fringes, or beyond, of the five understood senses."
I mean, it's not like the real world isn't full of things that the average person is not equipped to grapple with. There's a great documentary on wine-making (Blood Into Wine) that includes a part where a chap talks like a complete hippie about how under-used the senses of taste and smell of the average person are, and how paying attention and thinking about it and really pushing can expand that. And if I can expand my understanding and experience of taste and smell by critically sampling dozens of different beers (and I have) what could I do to my other senses by serious consideration/sampling of the numinous? (Or maybe just drinking more beer. It's worth a shot, right?)
And there's the thing: your story is about human beings, right? Now, there's a lot to be said about the scientific revolution and how it changed the human view of the world (and since Neal Stephenson covered it in the Baroque cycle I figure I'll shut the hell up), and it could also be said that most fantasy takes place in the pre-scientific world. However, I would argue that's bollocks, because most fantastists are writing in an analytical/critical modern world and they just cannot help the extent to which the scientific approach is embedded in their brains, and they certainly cannot help the extent to which their readers are coming to their work with that mindset. My point here is: human beings are prodding at every natural function of the world to put rules around it, what makes you think magic would somehow escape that investigation?
KJ Parker's first books - the Fencer trilogy - have the most amazing magic system I have ever encountered. It's amaze lies in the fact that no one understands how it works. But oh boy, are they trying. Arguably, the entire trilogy is about two academics experimenting with magic... and then trying really hard to fix it when they don't understand why it did that in the first place. This takes place in the margins of the story proper, though arguably it also causes it to be, and arguably no one notices. Like I said, amazing. (Then again, Parker is really good for turning fantasy standards on their sides and going, "and?")
This would be a good place to conclude with my "rules" for developing magic in your story. But I'm a big believer in The Rule - you know the one, the one that says "There are no rules". If you can make it work, then run with it. (Run. Run like you stole something.)
But you have to make it work.
To assist with that, I would suggest:
In other news, I will be posting some work-in-progress soon, for thoughts and comments and general entertainment, of the House of Truth and Lies variety, so if you're not encircled on my Dreamwidth and you'd like to see the WIP, let's sort something out.
Originally posted on Dreamwidth
- an old friend accurately skewered Brandon Sanderson for using his novel as an explanation of a gaming system of magic;
- NK Jemisin stamped her foot on the idea that magic has to make sense; and both of these bumped up against;
- Holly Lisle's advice, long held dear to my heart, on world-building your special physics.
Let me begin my rumination by stating my position: I think magic needs to have a system to make it an interesting and useful part of a story.
This is an entirely subjective opinion, but it's my preference; I complain often and loudly about "magic realism", because to my mind, it lacks any semblance of realism. The magic happens "just because", obeys no rules, serves no purpose (beyond usually illustrating neatly the author's thematic point) and is, I feel, the equivalent of scattering glitter on a craft project: a cheap and nasty way to make people go, "ooooh, pretty!" Mostly, this plugs into one of my deep reading needs, that being that I need to be able to interact with the world of the book - I need to understand what is happening without being told what it means, and I need to be able to predict possible futures as I go. If I do not have sufficient information about the world, I cannot do that, and I am not fully engaged. I get bored. I wander off. (This happens often with sci-fi that keeps pulling out gadgets and/or capabilities, so you never know whether this is tense because they're about to get stuck or actually no worries at all; or those bemusing fights in the Transformers movies where one robot punches a bit off another robot and I go, "...was that bit important?" It's like Agatha Christie: if you can't predict who the murderer was because she's left out a vital piece of information, what is the point?)
To add something a little more objective to that stance, I would suggest that if the magic has no rules, that's a surefire way to get into arguments with your readers. ("But why couldn't he just magic his way out of it?" Arguably, because the system doesn't allow it isn't any less irritating than JUST BECAUSE, but at least if you've explained the system beforehand, clever readers might figure that one out for themselves and not ask the question in the first place. Ideally, of course, you want the system to be so inherent and intuitive that it's obvious why he couldn't and the question isn't even considered.)
THAT SAID, there's a big difference between having a system, and having a gamebook. What you need to know and what your reader needs to know are two wildly different sets of data, and if the structure of necessary information starts to resemble a scaffold inhibiting the view of a famous landmark... well, you get pissed-off tourists.
Ms Jemisin talks about the magic of LeGuin and Tolkien, and I wish to state that Chez Dee are wholehearted and vocal proponents of that style of magic. Nothing gets our blood rushing like epic and non-visible magical battles of will. There should, we avow, be more of it. But still, in those books, there are things than you can, and things that you can't, and things that you might if you try hard / cheat / are willing to die for it. And what is that but a system?
As a thought exercise, I pondered how I might encompass those system in a statement, and wondered about things like "Magic is the way by which a person's will is enforced upon the world. The more you understand, the more likely it is to work the way you intended. Understanding encompasses both empirical and intuitive." Or even, "Magic is physics and logics at the fringes, or beyond, of the five understood senses."
I mean, it's not like the real world isn't full of things that the average person is not equipped to grapple with. There's a great documentary on wine-making (Blood Into Wine) that includes a part where a chap talks like a complete hippie about how under-used the senses of taste and smell of the average person are, and how paying attention and thinking about it and really pushing can expand that. And if I can expand my understanding and experience of taste and smell by critically sampling dozens of different beers (and I have) what could I do to my other senses by serious consideration/sampling of the numinous? (Or maybe just drinking more beer. It's worth a shot, right?)
And there's the thing: your story is about human beings, right? Now, there's a lot to be said about the scientific revolution and how it changed the human view of the world (and since Neal Stephenson covered it in the Baroque cycle I figure I'll shut the hell up), and it could also be said that most fantasy takes place in the pre-scientific world. However, I would argue that's bollocks, because most fantastists are writing in an analytical/critical modern world and they just cannot help the extent to which the scientific approach is embedded in their brains, and they certainly cannot help the extent to which their readers are coming to their work with that mindset. My point here is: human beings are prodding at every natural function of the world to put rules around it, what makes you think magic would somehow escape that investigation?
KJ Parker's first books - the Fencer trilogy - have the most amazing magic system I have ever encountered. It's amaze lies in the fact that no one understands how it works. But oh boy, are they trying. Arguably, the entire trilogy is about two academics experimenting with magic... and then trying really hard to fix it when they don't understand why it did that in the first place. This takes place in the margins of the story proper, though arguably it also causes it to be, and arguably no one notices. Like I said, amazing. (Then again, Parker is really good for turning fantasy standards on their sides and going, "and?")
This would be a good place to conclude with my "rules" for developing magic in your story. But I'm a big believer in The Rule - you know the one, the one that says "There are no rules". If you can make it work, then run with it. (Run. Run like you stole something.)
But you have to make it work.
To assist with that, I would suggest:
- you have to understand what sort of position magic occupies in your universe and your story, because otherwise what's it doing there? Also you will contradict yourself and that will be bad;
- if you have a magic user as a character, there had better be good reasons why they don't just fix everything with magic, otherwise there goes your believable tension; and
- think outside the box. Make something new, unless you can say something new about something old, or... y'know what? THERE ARE NO RULES.
In other news, I will be posting some work-in-progress soon, for thoughts and comments and general entertainment, of the House of Truth and Lies variety, so if you're not encircled on my Dreamwidth and you'd like to see the WIP, let's sort something out.
Originally posted on Dreamwidth