"Why Magic in a Story Should Make Sense" up at Fantastic Worlds

[jordan179]

N. K. Jemisin argues, in "But, but, but - WHY does magic have to make sense?"

http://nkjemisin.com/2012/06/but-but-but-why-does-magic-have-to-make-sense/

that magic in a story shouldn't have to make sense, because

This is magic we’re

Comments

[fervid_dryfire]

I doubt the rational thinking ability of any writer who'd use "woo-woo" and "froo-froo" as rhetorical illustration aids. =P

Anyway- I agree that magic must be consistent because if not, it's just another Deus Ex Machina waiting in the wings; as a frequent sci-fi/alternate history and occasional fantasy reader, I HATE Deus Ex Machina apperances. That a certain story's devices might make room for one- whether it be by means of magic or "convenient" sci-fi principles- makes the story (and by extension, the writer) very, very weak and usually not worth reading.

[jordan179]

Right. Even where you might expect a deus ex machina -- in mythology -- the appearances of gods, monsters etc. is usually given some rational explanation, as in "God cursed him because he was wicked" or "the monster afflicted the city because the king had offended Poseidon," or something of the sort.

I was thinking about this in connection with siege spells: the Bible not only explicitly says that God can bring down cities (note the fate of Jericho), but both Old and New Testaments then spend long amounts of verbiage exploring the implications of this concept -- that a city to be secure must be in good standing with God. Likewise, Tolkien's more powerful beings could smash ordinary vertical fortifications, with the result that the really strong fortresses were shielded by magic (Barad-dur) or were gigantic subterranean bunker-complexes with multiple vallations (Angband). Even mortal-built Minas Tirith of Gondor employed multiple walls in order to resist siege engines and presumably also siege spells

[polaris93]

Ironically enough, the original use of the deus ex machina was that of classic Greek tragedians, whose culture assumed that the Gods were behind everything notable in human existence that occurred. Having the God appear in the last act to give the closing speech that tied everything up in a neat package made sense to their audiences, because of the general assumption about the roles of the Gods in all aspects of human life. Once we stopped believing that, however, the deus ex machina no longer made sense, and instead became a cheap out that reduces a story to mere wish fulfillment or senseless quasi-religious maundering, not worth reading. So the value of the deus ex machina varies from a positive value, as in classical Greek culture, to a negative one, as in modern Western culture, depending upon our underlying assumptions about the Gods and Their relationship with humanity. If the reader believes that God or the Gods don't exist and/or don't participate in our lives, the deus ex machina in a story goes over like a lead balloon

[polaris93]

Oddly enough, the original use of deus ex machina was that of classic Greek tragedians, whose culture assumed that the Gods were behind everything notable that occurred. Having the God appear in the last act to give the closing speech that tied everything up in a neat package made sense to their audiences, because of the general assumption about the roles of the Gods in all aspects of human life. Once we stopped believing that, however, as you say, the deus ex machina no longer made sense, and instead became a cheap out that reduced a story to mere wish fulfillment or senseless quasi-religious maundering, not worth reading.

[pasquin]

If magic can be anything, then there is no risk. No Stakes. Handwavium will save the hero every time.

[jordan179]

Yes. Or alternately, if the author wants to be depressing, doom the hero every time. In either case, the conflict is exposed as phony: it's all simply in the author's hands, and the resolution is rendered unbelievable.

[pasquin]

So when do we get to read some of your writing?

[jordan179]

I do need to write more and critique less. My life is just in a place right now where I have to spend most of my serious time struggling to survive, though -- so I don't have a lot of time to do the kind of long, coherent writing necessary for novels.

[banner]

This reminds me of an essay written many years ago by one of the authors of Chivalry and Sorcery, an RPG system that predated D&D. It was about monsters and game/world balance. Way too many people make their monsters way to powerful (like say Vampires in most modern romance novels), so the question quickly becomes: Why is there ANYTHING else in the world? Why haven't the monsters killed off all other life, then each other, then starved to death?

Every monster must have restrictions, must have weaknesses, must have things that can kill it. The same goes for every animal, and so on. Magic like everything else must have balance, otherwise your world makes no sense. It must have limitations, it must have rules. If it doesn't people will quickly realize it when they read the story. You don't have to explain the rules, unless to clarify something that might otherwise appear to violate them, but you must follow them.

[wombat_socho]

That's ironic, because I remember playing C&S way back when, and aside from its sometimes obtrusive realism (disease, infected wounds, etc.) I remember thinking that the system was even more lethal to first-level characters than D&D, which is saying quite a bit.

[jordan179]

C & S was a great medievalist sourcebook (or set of sourcebooks), but the system was a bit unnecessarily complex (differently-constructed rules for everything, rather than rules unified around the main character attributes as in GURPS) which made it very hard to actually play or (worse) run.

[marycatelli]

It is necessary to create constraints, in order to invent freely. In poetry the constraint can be imposed by meter, foot, rhyme, by what has been called the "verse according to the ear."... In fiction, the surrounding world provides the constraint. This has nothing to do with realism... A completely unreal world can be constructed, in which asses fly and princesses are restored to life by a kiss; but that world, purely possible and unrealistic, must exist according to structures defined at the outset (we have to know whether it is a world where a princess can be restored to life only by the kiss of a prince, or also by that of a witch, and whether the princess's kiss transforms only frogs into princes or also, for example, armadillos).
-Umberto Eco

[marycatelli]

I have to quibble with your example of wizards and walls. Walls make wonderful defenses against peasants, also known as "people without wizards." It can also be useful against invaders, assuming the magics don't match up.

[jordan179]

I agree, and those would be examples of why castles might still exist. But the question would probably have to be addressed in-story, and then the question of just how nobles defend themselves against other nobles who might have wizards (there are many possibilities: counterspells, other types of fortifications -- or maybe they don't, maybe that's all done by challenge combat or something like that).