Systems of Magic, and a request

[rising_moon]

Recently I've read a few excellent fantasy novels which were written around believable, consistent, and reasonable systems of magic. Believable magic is one of the elements that will sell me on a writer. I've enjoyed The Abhorsen Trilogy, by Garth Nix, and, most recently, The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss.

I've learned that Brandon Sanderson, who wrote this essay on systems of magic, is going to finish Robert Jordan's 12th and final novel of the Wheel of Time series. Depending on my Lady's response to his work, I might take up the first one. :)

Unrelatedly (maybe): can any of you recommend a good history (articles, blogs, anything) of technical approaches to affixing Identity? That is, assuring that individuals are who they say they are? I'm making a study of transaction psychology -- financial services inclined but not fixed -- and would love some background data on approaches to identity assurance. Thanks!

Comments

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

i went into the essay with your comments in mind, but had trouble figuring out what viewpoint he presents that one could be partisan about. :) but i guess that's because i just read the essay as being about the taxonomy and especially about his rule of thumb (you can only use magic to solve problems to the extent that the readers understand how magic works). do you disagree with his rule of thumb? (i think it's an excellent one).

i find myself thinking about it in terms of mystery novels: you can totally end your mystery with "oh, it turned out the butler had an evil twin, ha ha" but some readers will feel cheated. similarly, coming up with a new magic rule that solves everything strikes me the same way.

[hissilliness.livejournal.com]

Samuel Delany suggests in a couple places that whenever we set up ostensably equal dichotomies, there's always an implicit hierarchy.

The only people I ever hear talk about Hard vs Soft SF are people who love the former, and usually show a bit of contempt for the latter. Sanderson goes out of his way to assert that he believes both the approaches he describes to be equally valid, but, to be blunt, I don't believe him.

I do think his proposed rule is worth musing on, I think it is nowhere near as hard-and-fast as he asserts. Exhibit A here would once again be Jonathan Strange, which is way to the Soft end if I understand the essay at all, and does not fall neatly into the problems-sloved-with-magic/problems-solved-not-with-magic dichotomy.

More generally, yeah, if you're setting up a puzzle game like a mystery novel, explicit rules are necessary. Not all fantasy novels are, or should be, puzzle games.

My New Theory

[hissilliness.livejournal.com]

This has just popped into my head, I need to mull it a bit more before I'm convinced I believe it:

the how-not-to-do-it examples in your and Sanderson's descriptions have two salient qualities: arbitrariness and effortlessness. The former, I think, is a matter of tone more than anything else. Magic needs to feel consistent, it does not need to necessarily be consistent.

The deus-ex-machina climaxes that Sanderson warns against are really more about that effortlessness. An example: in WoT, which, as I said, is generally too Hard for my tastes, there's a wicked important climactic bit where the main protaganist attempts a massive alteration of the very nature of magic itself. It is a very Soft moment--there had been no prior indication that human effort could produce any such effect.

However, Jordan emphasizes what a huge amount of work, skill, suffering, and risk it requires, and that's what makes it not feel like a cheat.

Conclusion: magic has to cost somehow. I suspect that this is why so much of the magic in Harry Potter felt flat to me--Rowling made so much of it costless & effortless.