[Ancalagon the Black]

Well, this topic has probably come up numerous times on this board, but darned if I can find it in the archives (lots of the archive links don't seem to work, anyway). I've been doing a bit of writing recently, and would like to gather some opinons from my fellow fantasy readers (and writers).
There seem to be two predominant types of magic in fantasy stories. One style is the "rigid" style, where magic is a force in much the same way that gravity is a force: It has its own set of rules dictating how it is used, and what it can do. This kind of magic is evident in things like AD&D based novels, Feist's works, etc. There are hard-set rules to magic.
The other type is where magic is a bit more vague. Magic is not really defined,it is just this mystical unknown that can do more or less anything. Generally this magic seems to crop up in more mythical works, and folk-tale inspired fantasy.
So the question to you guys is, which do you prefer? Can you think of any series or stories where either type was done really well?

[Runebreaker]

My opinion is that its based on the type of story you are doing. Examples would be martin and feist. Martins world is a world of magic but magic is a rare thing that is mysteriouse because so few know of its existence let alone its use (I dont know if this changes in book three only read 1 and 2). Because of this he doesnt need to go into deep details all he needs is a basic theory and apply it when needed . This also allows him to make alter magic if needed to better fit a situation.

Feist on the other hands main character for his entire series is Pug (or milamber) whose power is so great that i think he could give a Minor God a run for his money if he had to. Magic is a major function in his world and Pug is just one of many users. Plus since the first series is a tale of pug gaining his powers Feist had to explain how and why he had these powers. This is a good thing because it allows something to be set in stone . Plus if need be Feist could always make Pug stronger ( Only way to do that now is to literallt make him into a God)

Now if you are going for a Feist like story explain magic fully but if not then dont because that will only hamper you later when you might want to use a certain spell but youre system of magic wont allow it.

Also just because you might not mention why certain things happen dont go extreme with it to the point magic is the do all save all . No matter what set some vague limits and reprecussions to the use of magic. I mean dont have your wizard cause a tidal wave then get up and eat his lunch like that incredible spell was easier to do than taking a dog for a walk on a nice summer day.

[ChrisW]

I like the Jordan Model best though any type of magic use is good if well written.

[Nevyn]

Like Jordans' magic Katharine Kerrs'Dweomer seemed complete and easy for the reader to understand what was going on .

[fortytwo]

I am fond of the magic in the Recluce series as it seems to be understated and the people who do it pay the price by suffering mental and physical exhaustion.

[This message has been edited by fortytwo (edited April 28, 2002).]

[ezchaos]

I agree with Runebreaker. It depends on the type of story the author is writing. I do enjoy both ways of describing magic, if they are done right.

Because I'm so analytical, however, the 'hard' type of magic is my favorite. It kind of goes along with having a good map and list of characters in front of the book.

One famous example of 'soft' magic is the LotR/Hobbit books. Remember when Gandalf used magic? It was never explained-he just hit his staff on the ground, and some lighning flashed out. But, in the cases of these books, 'hard' magic was totally unnecessary. IMO, Tolkien was such a great writer that he could let his words speak for themselves without worry how magic worked in his world.

A good example of 'hard' magic would be Le Guin's Earthsea series. In this case, most of the major characters are magic users, so it would have been a little strange if Le Guin didn't exlain things in depth.

[Jessicar]

I'm a newbie to these boards so - hello!

I find this discussion really interesting. Especially the post about Tolkien and Le Guin.

I think that Tolkien has got a system of intrinsic magic that is internally consistent. He doesn't explain it because it forms part of the fabric of his world. Also I think you have to distinguish between the Hobbit, where the magic is mainly for fun, and LOTR where it permeates everything. Though you have to look beyond LOTR to the Silmarillion for an explanation as such.

I almost think Le Guin does it better - at least, differently. She has actually thought out how her magic works, and she stays within those parameters. The magic is part of the subject of the story whereas in Tolkien it is part of the world. Am I making sense?

I wanted to add something else: I was interested to see what ezchaos said:

Because I'm so analytical, however, the 'hard' type of magic is my favorite. It kind of goes along with having a good map and list of characters in front of the book.

I was having an argument - of sorts - with someone about this. Ok, my editor. I like to read books with a map and a list of characters (so long as they don't have too many apostrophes in their names) but I don't want to write them. My ed. says fantasy readers revel in the detail of the imagined world. Is that true? Is that everyone? Because I like the detail - that is where writers such as le Guin are outstanding - but I also enjoy character-driven narrative.

Whatever that is.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Greetings and welcome to the forum, Jessicar.
First thing: character driven narrative = good! That's all you need to remember.
And I do think that having a lot of detail is important for fantasy novels, although it is dependent on the type of fantasy you are writing. If it is a serious, and long, piece of fiction, then having a lot of detail is good because it gives the reader a feeling of completeness (Memory, Sorrow and Thorn for example). The trick is to not bog the book down too much with who begot who (Like the Silmarillion, which I realize was created not as an actual novel but as a companion piece). One of the best ways to do it, I find, is to create a world before hand, maps, peoples, magic, etc. THEN start making a story based on that. Keeps the world consistent for writing later on, so that you know where is south from where, and which obscure human faction hates which Elven tribe. It also gives a nice sense that the world is a real one, not one merely created for the characters to exist in (SOT series). This is also why 'hard' magic appeals to me because it is more in tune with a consistent fantasy world.

[allanon]

Descripted magic-like Eddings or Feist.

[Jessicar]

Hi Ancalagon,

Mmm...v interesting. You have given me food for thought. I have not made maps for a long time because I am hopeless at geography. I used to spend hours poring over Tolkien's maps. I tend to base my stuff in various kinds of alternate Europe (a bit like Guy Gavriel Kay only er probably not as good LOL).

This could be fun!