Fantasy Aficionados discussion

Almost all of our fantasy books include magic in one form or another. Even when the author tries to hide or in some ways dismisses it, focusing on character and plot more and leaves the imagination to wander a bit about the magic, especially early one like GRRM did in Game of Thrones or up front and early like Robert Jordan in WoT and Sanderson in any of his books, with magical systems explained in some form. Both still focused on their plots and characters also but the magic was an integral part of the storytelling. Which do you prefer? Personally, I love my magic and action to be embroiled within my characters and my plot. I tend to get annoyed at times when fantasy authors fade to black on the action or magic, especially when it's because they don't write it well.

I love magic in my books. Sanderson does an awesome job of complete magic systems. I also like the more simple style of Salvatore's Realms books. Another I like alot are Steven Erikson's Malazan books. Have you read those yet? There are some crazy scenes of magic in The Gardens of the Moon.

I like when there's consistency to the magic. Sanderson's great for full-blown creations that he choreographs carefully into his work, but I'll settle for a much more simplistic version or familiar style of magic as long as it makes sense.

The biggest thing for me to swallow with the Harry Potter stories is that the magic is convenient rather than consistent. I enjoyed the story telling but hated the magical additions. If you've got an amulet that allows time travel in one book, there's got to be good reason it can't be used in another. I tend to dislike it when magic can suddenly solve all problems and heal all things and hate when the magic is too "easy" to be believed.

I don't have a particular style of magic I like, but if it's fantasy, it should have some magical aspects in the story that are an important part of the storyline. I like when magic makes sense and follows some sort of systematic process.

I also expect magic to have a cost behind it, energywise. I don't think it works as well if the magic ability is endless and doesn't have some sort of check or flaw. It's probably the scientist in me that thinks magic should follow some sort of rules and make sense according to physics.

I liked that in Skinwalker, the author actually discusses the energy costs to shifting into another animal. Jane Yellowrock has to take mass from objects around her to shift into an animal larger than herself, and she has to release mass to shift into a small animal.

Traci wrote: "I love magic in my books. Sanderson does an awesome job of complete magic systems. I also like the more simple style of Salvatore's Realms books. Another I like alot are Steven Erikson's Malazan bo..."

I've read the first Malazan. I know they say you should read at least the first three to really get into it, but I haven't been able to. I intend to get into them though at some point.

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I don't have a particular style of magic I like, but if it's fantasy, it should have some magical aspects in the story that are an important part of the storyline. I ilke when magic makes sense an..."
All magic should have rules and limitations. If I read a book and I see none, I stop reading.

Terry, how do you feel about intrinsically magical creatures like faeries, elves, djinn, etc? Do you like to see the author try to explain their existence or how they have/use magic? I think when it comes to that kind of supernatural being, I take it on faith. If it comes to a human practicing magic, I do like a more rational explanation, if that makes sense.

Do you like it more when the magic-user is born magical or is trained to used magic?

I have to have magic in books, I prefer dark magic. It's a big plus if it's some scary looking things with too. Like in The dark tower series or Harry Potter. Oh, and Sandersons magic system in the Mistborn triology is pretty much awesome.

Terry wrote: "Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I don't have a particular style of magic I like, but if it's fantasy, it should have some magical aspects in the story that are an important part of the st..."

Depends on what rules have been set. I do prefer humans being born with the ability to use magic but then trained how to implement its use. Magical creatures, I do at times like when the author explains how they use magic as long as it pertains to the story, but like you I take it mostly on faith that such creatures are able to use magic and it's just one of those inherent things we don't quite get. i also like when an author takes such typical creatures and give a different twist to what's written, adding their own little attributes or history etc, making those creatures 'their' own within their story.

I love magic in fantasy boooks. I prefer that the magic has to be not really confusing or I might get what is going on some certain books. Also, I love really dark magic too like in the Harry Potter series.

I'd have to agree with you, Terry.

I don't mind rules and responsibility but a pet peeve I have in fantasy is when the author sets up these really cool powers that the hero cannot use because it's too dangerous.

I tend to like some kind of control, or managment of magic. Checks and balances more than limits. I don't like it when some magical something miraculously cures everything with no cost, but I'm with Traci, if it's going to be there, lets use it okay? (just don't go overboard)

I'm also okay with magical creatures and other semi (or Demi) humans (elves, dwarves, orcs etc.)

I agree with the OP. I like the magic/supernatural elements baked into the characters and story.

I'm not partial to a specific kind of magic, but, my favourite magic set up is with the Myth books by Robert Asprin. It seems logical, if magic can be logical. There is a power source that can be tapped, or tapped out...reminds me of cell phone coverage; sometimes it's strong, sometimes it's weak, sometimes there is nothing.

I do like the Harry potter style too, where there are magic words and wands. Don't see a lot of wands in hard core fantasy, sadly.


The best has to be the unexplained power. Like in the classic epic-journey-story (LOTR, Shannara series etc) where there is a mysterious 'powerful' wizard who leads the country hick on some adventure. The wizard's power is never really revealed, they just have it and can summon bolts of lighting whenever they want!

I'm right at the other end of the spectrum from that last comment, Bookworm! Haha. :) Like many of you have said, the magic system can look like whatever it wants as long as it has built-in limits. I expect half- or fully magical creatures to at least get tired if they're using too much magic at once, unless they're set up as gods.

Lately I've been drawn to very architecturally detailed, inventive magic that draws on an unusual resource. An example would be Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, in which "allomancy" has characters consume various metals to use their powers.

I agree that magic should have limitation but I don’t like it when they have a “cost” to pay. I don’t mean some kind of energy or thing like that. What I want to say is I really hate it when, let’s say, someone possess ability or spell to read mind but they can’t turn it off and freak out or when there is a silly rule such as you have to be virgin to use this and that spell…why? Is the god of magic Artemis or something?

I think I like there to be a system, and, whatever that system is, as long as it's not silly, or so unbelievable I can't even fit in a fantasy world concept I'll be alright with it. I don't like it when they set up nice rules for magic and then find out that nobody in the book follows them.

I also don't like the miraculous magical fix. I mean, what good was the quest for that holy grail thing when all you had to do was switch off the magical lightbulb for a second?

Other than that, I like to learn the systems, the theories and what not, and, since I'm pretty open minded, I can go with anything, the more intricate the better (with some limits).

Just not Xanth magic, that's all I ask. (Somethings are a bit too pharsical.

As long as there is no Deus Ex Machina magic wherein all the sudden someone suddenly masters a spell that hasnt been cast in the last two thousand years. God I hate that.

I like it when the magic is complex- Black Prism, Mistborn, etc- I think it is so amazing how after decades authors can still be so inventive.

Beyond that I really like dirty, gritty magic. Magic you have to work for becuase it won't just come readily. I do like low-fantasy, because of this, but it also just means I like to see characters *earn* their magic. Years spent learning, etc. I think this is why I like the Warded Man by Brett, or even Harry Potter, lol.

I don't mind if someone masters a spell if they've been working at it for years and years and years. Even if that spell hasn't been cast for ages. As long as they put in the work to get there, I'm fine with it.

I love Mercedes Lackey's magic system in her Valdemar series. It makes a lot of sense and deals with the functional differences between people to get the differences in power. Love it! They have to pay a cost to use their magic but it's a cost in energy which also makes sense.

I like David Eddings magic system in The Belgariad but it's rather simplistic when you look at it by itself.

I agree with everyone who's commented in some way about limits and consistency. I've advised authors time and again that fantasy readers come to fantasy novels for the magic (in one degree or another)--"realistic" is meaningless, but "plausible" is absolutely essential for the necessary suspension of disbelief: i.e. "I know this doesn't work in the real world, but I love that it works in this fantasy world."

And the only way to achieve that plausibility with magic is to be steadfastly consistent in the application of your own rules. You can set up the rules however you want--your magic can be rare or pervasive, weak or powerful, etc.--but if it can do one thing in Chapter 1, it should function the same way in Chapter 10, unless it's clear that some new element has been added.

I've seen a lot of fantasy manuscripts--and published books, and way too many movies--that break their own rules, and nothing will toss me out of a story faster than that.

In my writing classes in college the professor always hammered on one saying:

"People are more likely to believe an impossible probable than an improbable possible."

Which was his way of saying "It doesn't have to BE realistic (possible), it just needs to SOUND or FEEL realistic (possible).

MrsJoseph wrote: "In my writing classes in college the professor always hammered on one saying:

"People are more likely to believe an impossible probable than an improbable possible."

Which was his way of saying "..."

So, your saying magic in a story is like a breast augmentation?

Actually, wait, there is an analogy there. Magic in a story is like a good boob job. Get it right, and eveyone (ladies included, probably) will go

"Wow!...those.. I mean.. you... YOU look great!" get it wrong, and... too much makes you a freak of nature, too little and everyone will go "what's the point?" Nevermind where we can go with the quality of workmanship and skill involved with this. In the end, it's still not the natural or realistic image, just one that people will "Feel" okay with.


(and I'll be good now. I'm sorry about the boob thing Mrs. Joe. I am a retired sailor. I think it's a flash back from that trip to Istanbul. I won't do it again.)

The way I feel about magic is the way I feel about the concept of evil in a fantasy. I just don't buy that there's an evil lord out to destroy everything, simply for the sake of being evil. People have to have a reason to be good or evil, and "just cos" isn't a reason.

Same for magic. There should be reason there's magic in the world, or at least a reason people can use it. I also like to see people earn their magical abilities. Just like any skill, practice makes perfect, and I don't think there are enough instances of a spell going wrong (at least that I can think of) besides Bayaz in the First Law series.

Of course, some times, like in a long running series, a "reduction" helps the magic stand up to be noticed and is actually more effective than enhancing it.

I like it when there are rules to the magic. What i hate is when suddenly the author just changes everything upside down and everything that was impossible suddenly is.

I like my magic with a side of badassery, a pinch of mystery and just a dash of consequence.

I like my magic with some dark side. Nothing like good vs evil inside a head.

fantasy without some sort of magic is just not fantasy in my head. I like magic to have rules (here, I agree with Mach) and also I like magic to have limits so the witch/wizard is vulnerable.

I like the idea that magic is interaction with the structure of existence. That which is considered "magic" is interaction at such a deep level that the connection between action and result is only on the level of consciousness.

I had someone on a forum say to me that magic doesn't play an important part in most fantasy books. It's only a plot device. So I asked if it wasn't a major factor in books such as WoT and Harry Potter. He said, magic in HP wasn't important just all plot, you could slip anything else in there. I stopped reading any of his posts after that.

Soan wrote: "I like my magic with some dark side. Nothing like good vs evil inside a head."
What about magic where there seems to be good and evil but basically it ends up being what a person uses it for that may or may not be construed as evil or good?

I like the idea that in a world of magic, what attracts us is still people trying to live their lives. The addition of magic creates an extra layer of imaginative suspense and possibility. If in Harry Potter the kids just went to school, learned their spells and potions, got their degrees, and found jobs, I think I'd have stopped at the first book.

"Good vs. evil," "badassery, a pinch of mystery and just a dash of consequence,"the witch/wizard is vulnerable"--these conflicts connect directly to our own challenges in life, those of morality, individual conflict, and inner conflicts. Of course, in the magical world, the conflicts of nature, such as lightning, are also sometimes individually directed!

I like it used in inventive ways - like in the Dresden books. He has to make a potion of invisibility(i think - it's been a while since I read it) - so he ads elevator music, a cotton ball etc to the potion. The rituals and dealing/negotiating with spirits and demons are cool too.

Louise wrote: "I like it used in inventive ways - like in the Dresden books. He has to make a potion of invisibility(i think - it's been a while since I read it) - so he ads elevator music, a cotton ball etc to t..."

LOVE DRESDEN. Sorry for shouting but I had to make my adoration known. I'm three or four books behind, but I'll be catching up when I'm done with this bout of writing in another month.

I love a bit of badassery thrown in with any genre (well a lot, actually). Even better, teamed with magic! I like when authors pair magic with the mundane in a way that brings excitement to the normal and ordinary. That's what I love about urban fantasy and also Harry Potter. Although I didn't like some of the characterizations of The Magicians, I loved the idea of showing kids going off to Magic College, and how the twentysomethings would feel for a person of magical ability.

I agree with Mach/Sabine

I like consistency of some sort. Even when it's fantastical, I don't like it when things change from point to point. It removes a lot of the dramatic potential of magic. I mean magic can be ridiculous and overly powered and still consistent. I'm not saying it has to be all clearly defined and laid out with rules, but just that if I'm going to be totally taken off guard by something magical happening, it should at least retroactively make sense and not just be, "And now time to totally throw out the rules." Well, I suppose there are situations where you can throw out the rules (you establish worlds are blurring together or something) . . .

I do like the interface between the magical and the mundane a lot too, and like many of the above posters, it's pulled me toward a lot of urban fantasy in recent years.

I love consistent stories and magic with real rules. That's what I love about M. Lackey's books. She gives rules to everything (why some people are magical stronger than others, where magic comes from, etc). What I don't like is inconsistency. If you are to give rules...write those damn rules down and follow them! don't change mid-stream cause something is more interesting. Just follow the dang rules...that's what their for.

I think Dresden is a prime example of a magic system that requires a cost from the practitioner has rules, but is also very open, creative and inventive.

I also liked the "Sun Runner" matic ideas from Melanie Rawn's books (The Star Scroll) and, yet a very different, and interesting system in her second as yet unfinished (darn it) Exiles Trilogy. (The Ruins of Ambrai...I also liked the blond on the cover, but that has more to do with being a DOS than anything else.)

For that matter, even David Eddings, in the Belgariad, had a conversation about drawing energies and what focus words to use. Belgarath wasn't particularly fond of words like "push, flop and roll over." but it was a funny part of the book.

Yeah, Melanie Rawn makes George R.R. Martin look positively speedy in comparison. :) I read the first two Exiles books back in the mid-90s, then every few years I remember them look up to see if she's written the third one and go back to another series chuckling. As far as I know, she's never claimed she wouldn't finish out the trilogy either.

Hugh (A.K.A. Hermit the Curmudgeon) wrote: "For that matter, even David Eddings, in the Belgariad, had a conversation about drawing energies and what focus words to use. Belgarath wasn't particularly fond of words like "push, flop and roll ..."

David Eddings did have a pretty funny way of explaining his magic system. :-)

As far as magic systems go...I felt that Eddings system left a lot open for deus ex machina. Everything is up in the air re: abilities. The differences between strength and abilities is centered on thinking patterns??! and the difference between men & women also makes a difference in abilities.

The only thing he was consistent about was that having magic lengthened one's lifetime exponentially ((view spoiler)[but won't that be a bitch for Garion and Ce'Nedra when she starts getting old?? (hide spoiler)]) and the energy requirements to use magic...except that the energy requirements were not that drastic, either.

Melanie Rawn is a Goodreads Author. I think we should try to get a write in campaign to get her to release the third book!

I thought the second series was better than the "Sun Runner" series. And I liked the Sun Runner Series. (It wasn't perfect, but, in the end, I found a lot of it very enjoyable and looked foreward to the next one. )

I really really liked the first Exiles book, but the second really annoyed me. To be honest, it's been so many years I can't quite remember what my issue was with it. Obviously it didn't annoy me enough to not want the third though.

I'm pretty much with you on your evaluation of the Sun Runner series.

Reading through the comments here, I'm probably in the minority since I prefer the GRRM method of dealing with magic in that it isn't fully explained. I like the fact that it stays mysterious. Magic is used from time to time but it isn't the focus of the story. There are limitations and consequences that are touched on (such as the role of dragons) but the details of how the magic works isn't explained to death.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Sanderson's books but the infodumps and repetitive language tends to jar me from a story. (Granted, magic tends to be the main focus of his stories)

In general, just give me a few bits here and there, enough to let me know you thought about things. Like others mentioned, don't let it turn into a Harry Potter cop-out.

Terry wrote: "Soan wrote: "I like my magic with some dark side. Nothing like good vs evil inside a head."
What about magic where there seems to be good and evil but basically it ends up being what a person uses ..."
I agree that Magic in itself is neither good or evil. But, It's powerful and power seduces most humans. So to see character struggle between being good or evil is always interesting.
And esp when Magic can be dark and characters succumb to it, then they go back to struggle and being good after a while.. It just draws me in.

I like for people to be born with magical abilities that must be controlled and contained to be used to its full potential.

Magic tied to the elements also makes me happy :)

Quirky, to say the least. I enjoy a well-thought out system, intricate and potent when you see it...but not necessarily one easily and flagrantly flung about. I like magic, like all other things, to have their flaws; the concept of it being a limitless source of power without drawback well...that just doesn't tend to appeal to me.

Like Soan, I like it to have that seductive allure, though I tend to shy away from it when it starts to divide into clear black/white lines of good magic versus evil magic. There should always be shades of both - muddled together in a nice big grey. The classic...I suppose you would call, game-style mindset of "all Necromancers are evil, but the goodly priests will save us!" hurts, just a twinge.