Are we getting too worried about the underlying mechanics of our stories

[grahamguitarman]

As I read through the forums I often find discussions on the mechanics of how magic works or what limitations there should be ect. And as much as I enjoy these debates, I do wonder if we are getting too wound up about magic making sense. In Sci Fi you have to have scientific explanations for your worlds (even if its made up science) but we are not writing sci-fi!

When I read a good fantasy novel I don't care if there is an explanation for the magic that takes place in that world. I just immerse myself in that world and enjoy the magic for what it is - a fantastical firework display to mnake the novel more enjoyable to read. I don't expect someone to be explaining to me the workings of something I know clearly doesn't exist anyway. If someone flies using magic thats fine, I don't need to know the mechanics - I just want to hear an engaging description of what its like to fly by magic. Basically I just want to enjoy the mystery of a good fantasy setting with magic and a storyline that takes me away from reality.

And that I think is where my concern has its roots, I want my novels to be filled with magic and mystery, not science. I will use a little pseudo scientific Alchemy for mechanical things like the Airship balloons that fly my worlds. But when it comes to actual spellcasting I'll maybe describe something of the ritual involved, and probably something of the lore and cosmology behind it. But I don't want to take away the mystery of my magic by giving it the sci-fi treatment.

But thats just my personal opinion, I'm sure someone will come along and tell me I'm wrong LOL

 

[Steerpike]

I think magic in fantasy can remain mysterious to the reader; there's no reason the author has to share with the reader every detail about how magic works in his world. I do think the author needs to know the rules behind their own world, however. If magic is completely arbitrary and can be invoked whenever the author feels like it, the risk is a logically inconsistent story, or a story in which magic quickly runs away with everything to the point that every problem encountered could be solved by it and the reader will (rightly) be perplexed when the characters fail to use magic in some way that is consistent with what came before.

I don't need the magic system explained to me as a reader, but if I begin to feel that the author is just making it up as he goes, so to speak, then I'll stop reading the book.

 

[grahamguitarman]

oh yes, there needs to be some rules and limitations, every world needs to live by its own rules, but how far do you need to go to explain the science of something that can never be real

 

[TWErvin2]

I agree along the lines of what Steerpike indicated.

You don't need a rule book the size of a college physics text to list all of the rules and interactions possible of magic and how it works in the world, and you certainly don't need to share each rule and variable with the reader.

However, a reader should learn enough about 'how the magic works' or what to expect when magic comes into play in the context of the story--or at least an 'Oh, okay, I get it' when something different happens. All of this will happen when there is a logic, pattern, or system behind the magic. It allows for some consistency.

If characters (protagonists, antagonists and everyone in between) just start whipping magic out of their butts, randomly, apparenly varying in strenghts and range of abilities simply to fit the plot need in the story, well, the writer will at least lose me as a reader and I suspect many more.

 

[grahamguitarman]

yeah but I'm not arguing for inconsistency, if anything I tend to argue in other threads that unbridled magic is bad for storywriting as it causes too much deus ex machina instead of plot solving. my argument is that we don't need to know the science and physics behind magic to appreciate it. sure have consistent rules to depict what magic can do (though that would vary according to the type of being) but that is all about creating a consistent plot.

I don't need to know that the aurora borealis is a radiation storm to appreciate its beauty, only to know where it is and when I'm most likely to see it. If anything the science kinda takes away from the magic of it, though I'm sure a sci-fi fan would disagree. In the same way I don't need to know the science and physics of magic, only to know that it has limits in what it can achieve, and is conjured in a particular way.

most classic fantasy does not even attempt to explain magic, yet we accept its presence and use. Just seems to me we are we are getting too worried about the sci-fi instead of the fantasy (myself included - I've found myself questioning my own work as well in terms of getting too scientific)

 

[Anders Ämting]

There's nothing wrong with discussing the specifics of narrative devices, I think, but one has to keep in mind that they are just means to an end. "How magic works" is ultimately only important in regards to how that makes the story more interesting.

There is no "good" or "bad" way to write, per se, as long as the end result is a well-written and entertaining story.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

As I read through the forums I often find discussions on the mechanics of how magic works or what limitations there should be ect. And as much as I enjoy these debates, I do wonder if we are getting too wound up about magic making sense. In Sci Fi you have to have scientific explanations for your worlds (even if its made up science) but we are not writing sci-fi!

What you are basically pointing out is that discussions tend to focus heavily on mechanics and world-building, and not enough on character development and story structure. The reason for this is simple: world-building is easy. Story and character are hard.

 

[grahamguitarman]

What you are basically pointing out is that discussions tend to focus heavily on mechanics and world-building, and not enough on character development and story structure. The reason for this is simple: world-building is easy. Story and character are hard.

Yeah something like that, and you are right about the story and character building being harder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for world building, its essential to give a structure to your world - especially since its made up. But do we sometimes go into too much technical detail when creating the mechanics of our worlds? And I'm not criticising those who do a lot of world building either, I put a lot of work into my world creation too. But at the end of the day, as anders pointed out, they are only means to an end. Its the story that matters, and the world building should support not overwhelm that.

I started to question my level of world building recently, because I found myself trying to work out the physics of how magic would work in my world. Then I sort of had one of those 'hang on a mo' episodes and realised that it didn't matter. This was not sci-fi so why did I need to have an explanation for my magic? it just is.

Even though one of my stories is about a trainee wizard, I still don't think I need to worry so much about how magic works, as how the character develops and learns that magic. If that makes sense?

 

[Telcontar]

I agree that a lot of writers both here and elsewhere worry too much about the world and not enough about the story. That is why my first advice is usually 'write the story, then worry about the world.' In the process of writing any story based in a fantasy world, a lot of that other stuff at least gets touched on. It doesn't need to be fully fleshed out from the beginning.

Building worlds is a lot of fun, and it makes writers feel like they are still somehow making progress on their writing - though I would say this is misleading. Building an intricate world doesn't flex the right 'muscles' for a writer, for the most part. It doesn't help us build empathy and capture readers.

 

[grahamguitarman]

I agree that a lot of writers both here and elsewhere worry too much about the world and not enough about the story. That is why my first advice is usually 'write the story, then worry about the world.' In the process of writing any story based in a fantasy world, a lot of that other stuff at least gets touched on. It doesn't need to be fully fleshed out from the beginning.

Building worlds is a lot of fun, and it makes writers feel like they are still somehow making progress on their writing - though I would say this is misleading. Building an intricate world doesn't flex the right 'muscles' for a writer, for the most part. It doesn't help us build empathy and capture readers.

I agree.

Most of my world building - if you can call it that, is creating the mythology, which is another aspect of storytelling, the rest is just drawing locations and structures to make description easier. its when I let myself get bogged down in physics that I realised I was being too technical in my world creation.

 

[Devor]

People are more willing and able to talk about their world than they are about their stories. If nothing else, I can ask a question about world-building, or about research, or about whether or not to start with a prologue, and people will have answers.

If I were to ask, "I have these two characters who are romance interests, this is the loose situation, oh and the villain is acting this way. How do I build their relationship?" I'm honestly not sure what kind of answer I'd really get.

 

[Sarah Anderson]

I think the only one interested in the how and why of the magic in a fantasy is the author. As a reader I really don't care how it works or why. I am not interested in the rules. I am not playing an RPG where that would be relevant. I am reading a book.

I just want to see how the magic affects the story. That's all.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I think the only one interested in the how and why of the magic in a fantasy is the author. As a reader I really don't care how it works or why. I am not interested in the rules. I am not playing an RPG where that would be relevant. I am reading a book.

I just want to see how the magic affects the story. That's all.

A lot of younger readers are interested in that kind of thing—teenage boys especially obsess over the mechanics of how supernatural stuff works and will have endless arguments over (e.g.) whether or not character A or character B could win in a fight.

As adults, we tend to move away from that and toward character and story, but it doesn't mean that there aren't readers out there who appreciate that kind of thing.

 

[myrddin173]

I think the only one interested in the how and why of the magic in a fantasy is the author. As a reader I really don't care how it works or why. I am not interested in the rules. I am not playing an RPG where that would be relevant. I am reading a book.

I just want to see how the magic affects the story. That's all.

Benjamin is right, many readers love knowing the nitty-gritty. The fan community of Brandon Sanderson in particular, just go to the 17th shard forums. There's one discussion about how it is possible to get FTL travel using Allomancy (a magic system from the Mistborn series).

As for the whole "this is magic not science" thing. Keep in mind the following

Any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic

and

Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from science

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I prefer "Any science distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced" ;-)

 

[grahamguitarman]

Ha ha ha both quotes from sci fi authors i notice

 

[Devor]

I've been meaning to ask, but is there a good example of an author that has a magic system that's so well-explained it qualifies as science?

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

oh yes, there needs to be some rules and limitations, every world needs to live by its own rules, but how far do you need to go to explain the science of something that can never be real

I don't info dump. I show readers how certain things work.

Two of my most powerful characters are mutants who have powers that could potentially make them appear omnipotent. One can manipulate time; the other is a telekinetic. I never tell the reader that the telekinetic might die if he pushes himself too hard. Instead, I show the consequences of trying to move an airship with his mind. Basically the reader sees the telekinetic drool, bleed, lose control of his bowels and almost drop dead. This happens early on to establish that the character is extremely powerful, but he has a limitation (which is also "extreme").

The character who can stop, slow and reverse time has several limitations which readers will see. I'm in the process of a rewrite, and decided to add a new limitation to reversing time: the time traveler will travel to the same place relative to the Sun's position. Basically, he has to travel back to the same day (his home planet's year is almost exactly 356 days) and he uses an airship, so he won't risk embedding himself underground or plummeting to his death. I like this because it prevents a time traveling character from just popping up in whatever time or place he wants to.

As a writer, I need to know every limitation up-front so my magic/pseudo-science is consistent.

For the reader, I try to show every power and limitation in a way that is interesting. I prefer action over words (in this case), so I show consequences rather have a know-it-all wizard warn a party member who doesn't fully understand the power of his Soul Blade Axcalibur, "Warrior, your life force is running out!"

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I loved Gandalf who expalined just about everything. The Gauntlet quote doesn't mean dialogue is a bad way to demonstrate "the rules." It's actually me making fun of my inability to pull off a Gandalf-like character without killing the story.

(Good writing isn't just knowing your characters' limitations, but also knowing your own.)

 

[sashamerideth]

I worry about maintaining internal consistency and as a result, I try to keep rules in mind. I don't know if it was here or somewhere else, but world building is easier than writing a story to completion.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner

 

[OrionDarkwood]

You are not wrong, the reason I do it is not so much for the reader. But if I design something or introduce a concept in my book I want to know how it works inside and out so I can better convey it to the reader. IMHO its the difference between

Paul casts a fireball

Paul reached into the nether regions of pure magic, routing it through his frail mortal shell. The experience was intoxicating, orgasmic, a bit of feeling immortal. Paul quickly reminded himself who was master and forced the pent up powers of the pure magic into a physical shape of a big hot fireball and sent it hurling towards the orcs.