Fantasy Book Club discussion

What did you think about the magic in this book? The Chandrians, the school, calling the name of the wind, etc.?

One of the things that I love most about this book is the magic system. Specifically sympathy.

I like that Rothfuss takes the time to explain the magic and it helps us understand just how hard some of it is. In some books you find that magic is just that... magic! But in this book it is more real, more concrete and therefore more believable. My feelings on this are reflected in this post on C.L Wilson's blog and Brandon Sanderson's "Sanderson's First Law of Magic".

Sympathy just seems logical and it therefore brings me more into the book. I feel like there is a school somewhere on Earth (just like The University) where I should be able to go and learn all about sympathy. I feel like this sense of realism makes this fantasy book more engrossing and fun.


This "Hard Magic" as Sanderson calls it, is also one of the things that makes me like Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series. He goes to great lengths to explain how the magic works. This is something that I feel is missing in older fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I love Lord of the Rings, but if I knew HOW Gandalf performed his magic I would enjoy it even more. Maybe this stems from being a scientist or coming to fantasy more recently from science fiction but it helps if I can understand the magic system instead of it just being magic.

I thought the magic worked as well. Although I had issues with the book, none of it was due to non-beleif in the magic or world. I thought it was well explained and logical.

I like it in books when magic is something you have to learn and work at. It does seem to come natural to Kvothe, but he still has to work for it. I guess for me it makes magic more like science and something that is real. As Ben says above, the magic is "logical". I like that.

Just to be quick and frank, I also thought the magic was completely believable. I was confused by the description of it at first as I have never encountered a magic system like it before, but that confusion went away the further I moved into the book.

It's great. :)

The magic was one of the things I liked about the book, mostly, I think, because I like magic systems in fantasy books which are based on real life notions of magical practices: Wiki article on Sympathetic Magic.

I agree with you guys. I liked the magic system a lot for the same reasons you give.

I was more confused by the magic than not. We have sympathy on one side and naming on the other. One is logical, sympathy, and one isn't, naming. One you study and one you just have when you get mad!

I liked how much depth they put into the magic! Much like any other books who comes up with their own language and in doing so slack on the physics of the magic portion *cough* Eragon *cough* the magic was rather enjoyable and easier to understand!

I know a lot of people really like the magic and how it is handled, and I'm not going to disagree, but I don't really feel, as a reader, that I need to (or actually want) the details of it all. What's more important to me is just that it's handled consistently. Having said that, Rothfuss handles it well, but more so because of his excellent writing. If his skills were more mundane, so too would have been his handling of this aspect of the book.

In regards to magic in the book, more than anything, I'd like more information on the Chandrian. They beat the pants off all the other stuff (sympathy and naming) for catching my interest.

I totally agree that the magic system in the book is brilliantly handled. One point to make is that the idea of 'Sympathy' comes close to being original while 'naming' is just traditional and overdone.

I liked that the magic (sympathy) feels like science, like a science most people just don't know how to do. It's magic but it didn't real feel like magic to me.

I think one of the things I liked most was that it was explained, as well as a magic can be explained. The original discussion of sympathy really put it into my mind clearly and as I was reading the story I could understand how and why it was used.

It seemed plausible. I like when magic is plausuble... When it's too far out there, it loses me. I mean, I lose interest because my mind goes, 'oh come on now' and my eyes start rolling.

Ben wrote: "One of the things that I love most about this book is the magic system. Specifically sympathy.

I like that Rothfuss takes the time to explain the magic and it helps us understand just how hard so..."

Hey Thanks for linking me to the Brian Sanderson's post I like the way he pulls it all apart and put's it back together.

I loved the concept of magic in this book. To my knowledge (albeit limited :p) it's very original.

Sympathy is origonal and follows the laws of physics. I think that sums it up fairly well.

Naming is tradional and becoming overused, but Rothfuss somehow managed to put an entirely different spin on it; why does naming work? Not because you are speaking the "true" names of things, but because you're speaking names that the elements recognize. We all react to our names.

I honestly enjoy that both kinds of magic are included in the book. It gives the world a second layer - like an author that not only knows the history of the people on their world NOW, but the people who came before them.

I also like that, yes, he does explain the magic; but he doesn't go scrupulously over every detail. He doesn't make YOU memorize all the different sympathetic bindings.

I liked the magic system.

It reminded me somewhat of A Wizard of Earthsea.