Is there too much magic in fantasy?

[Tower75]

Hello, all.

I feel this'll be a touchy subject, but, submitted for your approval, during my reading forays of fantasy, I've found quite a common thing that magic seems to be, well, everywhere; wizards, or magic-throwers, of magical entities pour out of every book, it seems.

Okay, I hear you cry, 'err, duh, it's fantasy.' However, does that mean that fantasy 'must' have magic coming out of the rafters?

Maybe it's me, but some of the best fantasy I've read is when only one, or a few characters have magic, and magic is treated as an old, primal, mad thing that's not to be messed with, and not something that everyone can seemingly tap into.

Granted, it can be argued that Science Fiction, as a rule of thumb, has space travel in it, so Fantasy has magic, 'dems just the rules.

Am I alone in this thinking? I love fantasy, but whenever I'm reading a new fantasy and someone flings a spell I go, '(sigh) magic. Shoot 'em in the face with an arrow, in the faaace!'

 

[thaddeus6th]

It's an entirely valid view. My favourite fantasy series (Gentlemen Bastards, A Song of Ice and Fire etc) seem to have very little magic.

Lots of magic, little, or none whatsoever are all fair enough, I think.

 

[Boreas]

I also prefer fantasy where the magic isn't as overt. Though, I don't mind the magic too much, if the novel is well written. Otherwise, I'm more partial to authors like Guy Gavriel Kay. I also loved Holdstock's "Mythago Wood", Steven Brust's "To Reign in Hell" and Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy, though there was sufficient magic there.

I stay away from the likes of Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, David Eddingss or Raymond E. Feist (though I did read "Magician" years ago and enjoyed it - but I never picked up the sequels to finish the story).

I also didn't mind any of the magic in Moorcock's Elric books. I enjoyed reading the first 3 books of GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire sequence (but I decided to wait until they're all out before I read any more) and I also liked Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy and some of his stand alone books in the same universe.

 

[Danny Franks]

I'm not a fan of magic at all, despite being a fan of fantasy novels. Usually, if I read the protagonist described as a wizard, warlock, magician, sorcerer, conjurer or an apprentice to any of those things, in the blurb on the back, I won't buy it.

Generally, I like my fantasy stories to be much more historically based. Set in worlds that analogue our own, in periods that analogue our own. I accept magic as an element that will usually appear, but I don't like it to dominate proceedings.

I just can't get invested in magic systems and get frustrated when I feel like writers have spent as long figuring out how all that works, as they have figuring out the story they want to tell.

I definitely can enjoy magic as a low key, almost ambient part of a world, as it is in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy. More of a mysticism, a product of nature that certain people can tap into.

And I never minded it in the Wheel of Time, because it was something that was always used with a cost. Magic in that series was never easy, to wield or to control, and the consequences of using it were appreciated. But also, it was just something that was. And again, it was there, a background part of the world that people access either through training or just through a natural affinity.

I think the only books I've enjoyed that have magic as an overt, distinct talent that people develop, are Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, and it looks like the Stormlight Archive will be similar.

Any descriptions of spell-casting, or crafting runic incantations, or whatever, usually has my eyes straying up to my bookshelf to see what else is up there.

 

[WriterJosh]

Not only is it not a rule that SF must have space travel, it's absolutely not a rule that fantasy must have magic out the wazoo. There must only be an otherworldly element. That's all.

Gormenghast is routinely thought of as fantasy. There isn't really a single magical aspect, just an otherworldly one.

 

[Tower75]

I'm not a fan of magic at all, despite being a fan of fantasy novels. Usually, if I read the protagonist described as a wizard, warlock, magician, sorcerer, conjurer or an apprentice to any of those things, in the blurb on the back, I won't buy it.

Generally, I like my fantasy stories to be much more historically based. Set in worlds that analogue our own, in periods that analogue our own. I accept magic as an element that will usually appear, but I don't like it to dominate proceedings.

I just can't get invested in magic systems and get frustrated when I feel like writers have spent as long figuring out how all that works, as they have figuring out the story they want to tell.

I definitely can enjoy magic as a low key, almost ambient part of a world, as it is in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy. More of a mysticism, a product of nature that certain people can tap into.

And I never minded it in the Wheel of Time, because it was something that was always used with a cost. Magic in that series was never easy, to wield or to control, and the consequences of using it were appreciated. But also, it was just something that was. And again, it was there, a background part of the world that people access either through training or just through a natural affinity.

I think the only books I've enjoyed that have magic as an overt, distinct talent that people develop, are Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, and it looks like the Stormlight Archive will be similar.

Any descriptions of spell-casting, or crafting runic incantations, or whatever, usually has my eyes straying up to my bookshelf to see what else is up there.

Good, good. Not just me. I agree with that entire sentence, apart from the books quoted, as I haven't read 'em.

 

[Gabriel_North]

I agree, and it's a difficult task to find the right balance, especially if you're writing the stuff. I'm certainly not a big fan of stories like the old Elminster tales from the Forgotten Realms, where the "art" of magic is almost suffocating and takes precedence over true character building.

However, if it's interconnected with the story and characters correctly, it brings the writing to life. The term wizard does seem a bit cliche these days, though, that's for sure.

 

[Montero]

Well I like some magic/god powers in a story, providing what you see is the cost, the hard work, as well as the benefit and for them to be self-consistent.

So - Bujold's Chalion books with god given powers and boy is the story about the cost of them.

Barbara Hambly - Dragonsbane, Ladies of Madrigyn, where you see all the learning curve and again the cost and it is a very integral part of the story, not a get out of jail free card.

Juliet McKenna - where you have two competing schemes of magic, different attitudes to magic in different countries - doesn't dominate the story, but is an important part of the plot development.

Also quite like psi powers in science fiction. (Same difference in some ways).

And for a magic dominated story, like Diane Duane's contemporary Wizard series (which is YA, but readable by adult YA) I like the fun of that. Also her three "cat wizard" books. (Complete with a much fuller version of cat chess )

Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionnovar - for god powers (again bought hard). (And I do love the whole "weaver at the loom" concept underlying the world.)

 

[Perpetual Man]

I don't think that magic needs to be an integral part of fantasy. Just because by definition it is a fantasy story it does not have to have magic. There are plenty of material out there that does not have magic and does very well without it.

But it can be a key feature to a story and I would not discount something just because magic was in it, in fact thinking about things a lot of the stuff I really enjoy does have magic and magic users in them.

For me, I think it is the way that magic is used that becomes the important factor. If it feels like a natural part of the world, and is not something totally all powerful and a get out of jail card, then it is welcome to be used. Indeed I'm pretty sure some of the classics of the genre use magic quite strongly.

From Merlin in the Sword in the Stone, through to Gandalf to Sparrowhawk, to Melisandre all use magic to some degree and yet not one over uses it to the point where the book becomes about what they do, rather they are part of the unfolding story.

Hope that makes sense, my head is starting to hurt

 

[Boreas]

Generally, I like my fantasy stories to be much more historically based. Set in worlds that analogue our own, in periods that analogue our own. I accept magic as an element that will usually appear, but I don't like it to dominate proceedings.

I just can't get invested in magic systems and get frustrated when I feel like writers have spent as long figuring out how all that works, as they have figuring out the story they want to tell.

I definitely can enjoy magic as a low key, almost ambient part of a world, as it is in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy. More of a mysticism, a product of nature that certain people can tap into.

I agree with your comments here, especially about preferring magic as a low key and ambient part of our world that can be tapped into. It's one of the reasons I've not been able to pick up Sanderson's "Mistborn" books, despite people raving about it. I think, at some point, I am going to give in and read them, though I don't see it happening anytime soon.

One of the reasons I liked "Mythago Wood" so much was because the 'magic' it presented was borne from our own subconscious and dealt with the mythical arch types that each person has learned and assimilated as they've grown up in the culture that they're part of.

And you're right that Hobb's Farseer books also present magic as a very primitive form of mysticism that man has lost touch with, especially as the cultural construct becomes more complex and further removed from nature.

Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionnovar - for god powers (again bought hard). (And I do love the whole "weaver at the loom" concept underlying the world.)

GGK's Fionovar Tapestry was a mix of overt magic AND the mythical arch types that "Mythago Wood" delves into and I thoroughly enjoyed it because of GGK's prose.

Like I mentioned previously, I don't mind some overt magic in fantasy books if they're well written, but I definitely prefer a rather subdued element of magic, if there has to be one at all.

 

[Kyza]

I actually prefer no magic at all!

Now correct me if i'm in the wrong genre but I prefer titles such as [however mainstream] the Hunger Games - and I was thinking about how I would explain this yesterday actually, but I would most probably reveal it as 'Alternate Reality', which, granted, can encompass a vast majority of disciplines. But stories which don't stray too far from reality, and are actually very relatable.

 

[Boreas]

Wouldn't "Hunger Games" be classified as science fiction? A near future dystopia on account of food shortages? I haven't read the books, but I did see the movie and there was nothing there that led me to believe it might be an alternate reality.

I might have missed something, though, or there might be aspects of the story that weren't fully elaborated in the feature adaptation.

 

[Kyza]

No you are completely right in the description - and this is where I become confused about the classification.

My logic is that, with a few twinges in society, our world as we know it could become that dystopia world!

 

[Boreas]

These "few twinges in society" that you are talking about is the basis for most science fiction. The "twinges" can take multiple form - technological, sociological, biological, etc.

There is a sub-genre of science fiction that deals with alternate histories, where real historical events are changed and the resultant effects are elaborated upon. The most famous example that comes to my mind is "The Man in the High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick, where Germany wins WWII. Novels like these might be more to your liking.

Still, you shouldn't discount the fantasy genre completely as there are some fantastic fantasy novels, irrespective of the level of magic that is illustrated - from a very minimalist approach to your usual tropes of wizards, farmboys, elves and magical swords.

 

[Vince W]

While I have read and enjoyed fantasy stories from both ends of the spectrum, I do prefer fantasy settings with little magic. It's just a matter of taste, but I like it when magic is rare, frightening, and powerful.

When every other character uses some form of magic it loses its, er, magic.

Perhaps I feel this way because some of my first exposure to fantasy was Howard and Moorcock and the like.

 

[Danny Franks]

I agree with your comments here, especially about preferring magic as a low key and ambient part of our world that can be tapped into. It's one of the reasons I've not been able to pick up Sanderson's "Mistborn" books, despite people raving about it. I think, at some point, I am going to give in and read them, though I don't see it happening anytime soon.

One of the reasons I liked "Mythago Wood" so much was because the 'magic' it presented was borne from our own subconscious and dealt with the mythical arch types that each person has learned and assimilated as they've grown up in the culture that they're part of.

And you're right that Hobb's Farseer books also present magic as a very primitive form of mysticism that man has lost touch with, especially as the cultural construct becomes more complex and further removed from nature.

The Mistborn series is one I ended up enjoying, though I really only persevered with it because I bought all three of the books at once, and felt it would be a waste to give up. But yeah, initially the magic is just overpowering, and the idea of different metals giving you different abilities, then alloys of those metals countering different abilities, was something I would usually just frown at, and give up on.

I think what kept me going was that the story itself was genuinely exciting, and the idea that using this magic was forbidden, and would have a person hunted down and killed, was an interesting spin.

Now correct me if i'm in the wrong genre but I prefer titles such as [however mainstream] the Hunger Games - and I was thinking about how I would explain this yesterday actually, but I would most probably reveal it as 'Alternate Reality', which, granted, can encompass a vast majority of disciplines. But stories which don't stray too far from reality, and are actually very relatable.

My only criteria for labelling something 'fantasy' would be that it happens in a world that is not our own. So I would describe the Hunger Games as a fantasy story. But of course, the category can be further subdivided into 'alternate reality', 'dystopian', 'epic fantasy', and plenty of others.

Really, when I consider novels that main people would judge the prototypical post-Tolkien fantasy stories, stuff like David Gemmell's Legend and Raymond E. Feist's Magician, and David Eddings' Belgariad, I'm not actually a big fan of any of them.

There are elements I liked, but just as many that I didn't.

 

[Gabriel_North]

I actually prefer no magic at all!

Now correct me if i'm in the wrong genre but I prefer titles such as [however mainstream] the Hunger Games - and I was thinking about how I would explain this yesterday actually, but I would most probably reveal it as 'Alternate Reality', which, granted, can encompass a vast majority of disciplines. But stories which don't stray too far from reality, and are actually very relatable.

Yeah, I view Hunger Games as more of a sci-fi, although I see your point.

 

[Tower75]

So, essentially, we all agree: magic sucks.

So, what are the good non-magical fantasies, any I should know about?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Little, Big springs to mind.

 

[Vince W]

Hmmm. I'd suggest Bernard Cornwell's series of Arthur books. The first is The Winter King.

In the same vein there is The Once and Future King by T.H. White.