Sheilawisz's First Law

[Sheilawisz]

After having breakfast today, I was thinking about that thread of the Sanderson's law and then this idea came to my mind... to state my own Sheilawisz's First Law for Fantasy stories!!

This is just for fun and discussion anyway, you know that my personal opinion is to avoid any "general law" for Fantasy stories and create your own, but my own idea for a Fantasy Law goes like this:

Sheilawisz's First Law: Magic should be used every or almost every time against trouble, obstacles or enemies that have Magic as well to fight against the Magic, or else it gets very easy for the Fantasy writer to solve all the trouble too easily and the readers will lose interest in the story.

That is what I do in my own stories, the reason that my Mages have troubles too despite the super powerful Magic that they are =)

I can give an example that breaks my law and that I disliked a lot:

In the Prince Caspian Narnia movie, the Telmarine Army was winning the final battle because they had the best army and fought bravely. Then, when everything was lost for the Narnians, Susan and Lucy find Aslan (who seems to have simply appeared in the forest) and he started to activate Narnia's Magic or something...

Then the Telmarines lost the battle quickly, even though they were just about to crush the Narnian forces!!

What made me so angry about this particular scenario was not that Aslan used Magic to save the defeated Narnians, but that the Telmarine Army had no Magic to throw back at him, not even a little... So, this is a good example of how my Sheilawisz's First Law could be applied to a Fantasy story =)

What do you think??

 

[Devor]

Sheilawisz's First Law: Magic should be used every or almost every time against trouble, obstacles or enemies that have Magic as well to fight against the Magic, or else it gets very easy for the Fantasy writer to solve all the trouble too easily and the readers will lose interest in the story.

Not bad. I'd revise it to say that magic is a show of force, and that the good guys shouldn't have greater force than the bad guys, or it skews the conflict. But there's other types of force, like a great big army, and magic doesn't always have to be all-defeating.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Thanks Devor!! You have good points- Magic does not always have to be all-defeating!!

What about a great big army that is winning many battles suffering little casualties, because they have some two hundred Mages that can quickly devastate a rival army with some sort of beams of death??

Then, an opposing army would need to have its own Mages to create some form of defenses, or maybe to throw their own beams of death and create a leveling of forces =)

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

Mmm, interesting. Magic is actually becoming uncommon in my world, I mean mages are, as part of my big plan to increase the danger factor around it. I totally agree with you about how annoying it is when magic saves the day. Although there are a few intances where it works well, usually on a small scale, like the scene in The Hobbit when Gollum sits in front of the door and Bilbo uses the ring to sneak past. But big elemental upheavals that change the course of a battle? Oh please.

 

[ScipioSmith]

In the Prince Caspian Narnia movie, the Telmarine Army was winning the final battle because they had the best army and fought bravely. Then, when everything was lost for the Narnians, Susan and Lucy find Aslan (who seems to have simply appeared in the forest) and he started to activate Narnia's Magic or something...

Then the Telmarines lost the battle quickly, even though they were just about to crush the Narnian forces!!

What made me so angry about this particular scenario was not that Aslan used Magic to save the defeated Narnians, but that the Telmarine Army had no Magic to throw back at him, not even a little... So, this is a good example of how my Sheilawisz's First Law could be applied to a Fantasy story =)

What do you think??

This is what made me introduce a Mage Corps into my Imperial Army, as I realised that it would be stupid of them not to have magic to counter the magic of the enemy. I also had to introduce a new form of magic that would allow the protagonist to match force against the villain.

 

[Mindfire]

What made me so angry about this particular scenario was not that Aslan used Magic to save the defeated Narnians, but that the Telmarine Army had no Magic to throw back at him, not even a little... So, this is a good example of how my Sheilawisz's First Law could be applied to a Fantasy story =)

What do you think??

Well that's kind of the point of the Telmarines, isn't it? They were against magic and magical creatures. They tried to exterminate the native Narnians. They were behaving in character. I don't see how that's grounds for rage exactly.

It seems to me that your law boils down to: "If there's any magic in the story at all, then everybody has to have magic. Otherwise, it's just not fair!" I take issue with that. If everybody has magic, then the magic loses some of its specialness. Part of what makes magic magical is that only a select group of people have it. Even in universes where magic is widespread and commonplace there's always "haves" and "have nots". In the world of Avatar, there's benders and nonbenders. In the Codex Alera, all the Alerans (except Tavi) can furycraft, but some are more powerful than others, and their enemies either have a different kind of magic, like the Canim, or have none at all, like the Marat. In my book I also have haves and have nots with regard to magic and I even make it a plot point. If you decree in a work that everybody has to have magic or nobody can have it, it can actually limit your options rather than make a story more engaging.

 

[Mindfire]

Thanks Devor!! You have good points- Magic does not always have to be all-defeating!!

What about a great big army that is winning many battles suffering little casualties, because they have some two hundred Mages that can quickly devastate a rival army with some sort of beams of death??

Then, an opposing army would need to have its own Mages to create some form of defenses, or maybe to throw their own beams of death and create a leveling of forces =)

But if everyone's always equally matched, that also kills the sense of conflict. The idea of an arms race is good, and it's one that I use, but I'm still not buying the "everyone's got it" thing. What if there's a group of people who just dont' have magic? I think it's also interesting to explore what a culture without magic does to compete with one that does.

 

[Devor]

But if everyone's always equally matched, that also kills the sense of conflict. The idea of an arms race is good, and it's one that I use, but I'm still not buying the "everyone's got it" thing. What if there's a group of people who just dont' have magic? I think it's also interesting to explore what a culture without magic does to compete with one that does.

Yeah, I agree. To me the problem is what I call the "fix-it-all" button because of how often it's employed that way in Dr. Who. There's a single spell or device which completely clears up the conflict no matter how bad things get.

The thing is, it's not even Deus Ex Machina because it's been completely foreshadowed, and makes perfect sense in the context of how the spell or gadget is supposed to work. We can see that the Doctor is looking at the robots who came through the vortex with funny glasses, we can assume he's seeing something on them, I guess it makes as much sense as anything that that something could be used to pull them back through the vortex. But really, the world-wide invasion is just wrapped up a little too cleanly, a little too quickly, compared to the scope of the conflict that was built up.

I love Dr. Who, and I love Narnia, but I enjoy them for reasons besides the way the great conflicts are resolved. The same is true for me of some of the Harry Potter books (1, 2 and 4). I love these stories, but I still can't help but feel a little disappointed by their conflict resolution. (Although Dr. Who has gotten a lot better about it since then.)

 

[Anders Ämting]

After having breakfast today, I was thinking about that thread of the Sanderson's law and then this idea came to my mind... to state my own Sheilawisz's First Law for Fantasy stories!!

This is just for fun and discussion anyway, you know that my personal opinion is to avoid any "general law" for Fantasy stories and create your own, but my own idea for a Fantasy Law goes like this:

Sheilawisz's First Law: Magic should be used every or almost every time against trouble, obstacles or enemies that have Magic as well to fight against the Magic, or else it gets very easy for the Fantasy writer to solve all the trouble too easily and the readers will lose interest in the story.

That is what I do in my own stories, the reason that my Mages have troubles too despite the super powerful Magic that they are =)

I think your law is worded a bit strangely. You are basically saying that "protagonists should always use magic whenever antagonists use magic" because "otherwise magic can be used as a universial solution to all problems resulting in a lack of suspense."

I don't really see a corrolation between those two statements. It makes more sense if you replace "always" with "only", but that leads to another problem: How do you realistically keep magicians from using magic to solve problems that are not of a magical nature? If that's what your law means, then each antagonistic element needs to posses magic equal to or greater then your protagonists, and the actual scale of opposition otherwise doesn't matter.

Example: One of your mages faces off against and entire army of non-mage opponents. As I understand your law, the mage cannot use magic to defend himself at all.

Or, less dramatically, if your mage faces an everyday problem that can realistically be easily solved with magic, you need to come up with an excuse for why he doesn't.

I can give an example that breaks my law and that I disliked a lot:

In the Prince Caspian Narnia movie, the Telmarine Army was winning the final battle because they had the best army and fought bravely. Then, when everything was lost for the Narnians, Susan and Lucy find Aslan (who seems to have simply appeared in the forest) and he started to activate Narnia's Magic or something...

Then the Telmarines lost the battle quickly, even though they were just about to crush the Narnian forces!!

To be absolutely fair, Aslan is pretty much literally Lion Jesus, miracles and all, and everything he did after The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was some sort of test of faith. IIRC, he showed himself only to Lucy because she was the only one who kept having faith in him, and if the others had listen to her when she said "Guys, I totally saw Aslan!" they would have sorted out the whole mess that much sooner.

 

[Mindfire]

To be absolutely fair, Aslan is pretty much literally Lion Jesus, miracles and all, and everything he did after The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was some sort of test of faith. IIRC, he showed himself only to Lucy because she was the only one who kept having faith in him, and if the others had listen to her when she said "Guys, I totally saw Aslan!" they would have sorted out the whole mess that much sooner.

The point. This guy gets it. xD

 

[Queshire]

Personally I prefer Uncle's first law; Magic must defeat Magic!

Slightly off topic; in my WiP magic is everywhere, it acts like technology in the real world. A swordsman can defeat a traditional magician because they are reinforcing themselves and their weapon with magic.

 

[Mindfire]

Personally I prefer Uncle's first law; Magic must defeat Magic!

Slightly off topic; in my WiP magic is everywhere, it acts like technology in the real world. A swordsman can defeat a traditional magician because they are reinforcing themselves and their weapon with magic.

Interesting idea. I use a slightly different take. All the magic systems have inherent weaknesses (otherwise, the magic users would have already taken over the world, right?), so non-magic users simply find ways to exploit those weaknesses.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

If the Summoner from Diablo II and LARPing taught me anything, it's this:

Fighters rush casters; casters die.

 

[Mindfire]

If the Summoner from Diablo II and LARPing taught me anything, it's this:

Fighters rush casters; casters die.

Unless said caster is Gandalf, in which case, You Shall Not Pass.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I hate it when my barbarians rush Gandalf and get blown to smithereens.

Maybe if they knew what a smithereen was, they'd be more careful about which caster they rush.

 

[shangrila]

Using magic to solve problems, even problems caused by magic, will always end up being contrived though. Unless you give the reader a good understanding of how the magic actually works, you'll end up making it feel like everything is just happening because you (the writer) said so.

I don't know if that describes it properly, but the Malazan series is a good example. In the last few books, everything was caused and solved by magic. But you knew the good guys were going to win, even if one guy stood against a handful of gods, because the magic was so ambigous that Erikson would handwave any solution without worrying about it conflicting with any rules. And while I'm sure it would look cool in a movie, it just felt lame reading it. Things just...happened.

 

[Sheilawisz]

@Mindfire: I was angry to see the Telmarines losing the battle because I was cheering for them, and to see that suddenly Magic coming out of nowhere defeated an army that was clearly the best fighter was, well... very unfair, at least for me!!

Well, I never said that everyone must have Magic: What I mean is that if Magic is to be used to solve trouble, get past obstacles and destroy enemies, then these enemies or whatever must have Magic too in order to make it more difficult, or else everything will get too easy for the protagonists =)

Having two forces equally matched is better than having one that clearly outmatches the other: Think of two armies going to battle, one with AK-47s and tanks and the other with wooden shields and swords... is that going to be a good battle??

It's better to have tanks fighting tanks and swords fighting swords, it would be a more evenly matched and exciting battle that could be decided by courage and skills rather than sheer destructive force by itself.

So, It's better to have Magic vs Magic, at least for crucial parts of a story =)

@Anders: I did not include the word "Always" in my Sheilawisz's First Law at all- It says every or almost every time, so it does not mean that Mages are forbidden to use Magic against non-magical enemies, troubles or innocent people...

In my stories my Mages have used their weapons to nuke cities that counted only with fighter jets, missiles and artillery to try to defend themselves, but when it comes to having real trouble in important parts of the stories, they are fighting other Mages or having magical trouble and it's not as easy as killing innocent people that are simply trying to escape.

They also use Magic just for fun, like making plum juice appear out of nowhere and start a party =)

So, it was fair that the Telmarines lost the battle just like that, simply because the Narnians had God in their side?? That's like saying that it's fair that Star Trek space fleets would always win easily against starships from other space stories, simply because they have Q in the ST universe- I am not satisfied with that particular moment of the Prince Caspian movie, it was simply unfair.

@Shangrila: I agree that readers need to be given at least a few clues about how Magic works and what are the limits that it has to respect so the stories can be good, but I see no relation between that and my Sheilawisz's First Law.

 

[Mindfire]

@Mindfire: I was angry to see the Telmarines losing the battle because I was cheering for them, and to see that suddenly Magic coming out of nowhere defeated an army that was clearly the best fighter was, well... very unfair, at least for me!!

So, it was fair that the Telmarines lost the battle just like that, simply because the Narnians had God in their side?? That's like saying that it's fair that Star Trek space fleets would always win easily against starships from other space stories, simply because they have Q in the ST universe- I am not satisfied with that particular moment of the Prince Caspian movie, it was simply unfair.

You were cheering for the Telmarines? Did you happen to notice that they were the bad guys? And GENOCIDAL bad guys at that. Or at least the leaders were. Did you cheer for the White Witch too? The Telmarines went out of their way to destroy everything magical. Their defeat was their own fault. In fact, it's ironic and fitting that they should be defeated by the very things they sought to destroy. And how on earth you can sympathize with a bastard like King Miraz is beyond me. Aslan helping the Narnians was very fair, because that's how the world of Narnia works. Did you want him to just stand there and do nothing? That would be marvelously inconsistent with his actions during the previous story. If you went into a Narnia film expecting Aslan to not save the day, then you set yourself up for disappointment.

And anyway, who said battles were supposed to be fair? The entire point of battle is NOT to be fair. Fair = gridlock. Gridlock is not exciting. Conflicts that stretch out forever with no clear winner are not exciting. It's the ups and downs, defeats, victories, upsets, and turnovers that make any conflict exciting. An infinite tug of war? Who wants to see that. And I don't really care if a battle is "fair" or not, so long as my side wins in the end and I enjoy watching the fight. And believe me, watching their precious catapults get killed by trees and seeing the River Spirit drown their armies, including that one treacherous guy whose name eludes me, was VERY satisfying.

Incidently, I mean no offense, but are you atheist and/or one of those people who just doesn't like the Narnia stories? Because that's the only way I can fathom you cheering for the Telmarines.

 

[Sheilawisz]

After thinking about it a little, it seems to me that I was cheering for the Telmarines because they were humans fighting creatures, and did not think of them as bad guys: They had the right to live in Narnia too and they were trying to impose their civilization over the creatures, pretty much what humans do all the time =)

I did not really like Miraz, but after all, I have not read the Narnia books (just watched the first two movies) so please do not take it that I have a good knowledge about Narnia and all the characters, because I have not. Anyway, yes... in the first movie I was cheering for the White Witch because she was so cool!! (no pun intended).

In battles, a skilled general with surprising tactics can defeat a larger and better armed army- That has happened in the real world and it can be good for Fantasy stories too, but to be fair and work well, both armies must have at least a similar level of weapons or else one side has no chance to defeat the other.

That's what I mean with Magic vs Magic...

 

[Mindfire]

In battles, a skilled general with surprising tactics can defeat a larger and better armed army- That has happened in the real world and it can be good for Fantasy stories too, but to be fair and work well, both armies must have at least a similar level of weapons or else one side has no chance to defeat the other.

That's what I mean with Magic vs Magic...

Well, not necessarily. The Native Americans had mounted archers that could hold their own against enemies armed with guns. I see what you're getting at. But I think there's also something to be said for the underdog scenario. A band that's vastly outnumbered and outgunned but manages to come from nowhere and win anyway. Or a conflict between opposing philosophies, like magic vs no-magic, or mutants vs anti-mutants. There are ways to make sides of a conflict "equal" without making them "equal", if you see what I mean. Even divine intervention can be good if done well. It just takes more work from the writer to make it satisfying.