Why isn't magic practical in fantasy?

[JoanDrake]

I've just spent a little while in the GRRM section. I really have to get some of them just to see what the fuss is all about.

However, so much reading on the subject has brought up a question which all fantasy has to me. I've not dwelt on it, as Fantasy has other charms, but it does bother me from time to time.

The inconsistency that sometimes bothers me is why is magic really so damned, well...useless...at least in our modern sense, if it rules these people's worlds?

Consider. In GoT or SoIaF, at least if you go by the descriptions I see here and the TV trailers, a fairly well trained and equipped brigade of 18thc British regulars could handily rout the entire Armies of Martin's world. They might need a battery of Bofors guns to bring down the Dragons but one would do the trick nicely.

And the real problem is that if their wizards could simply snap their fingers and stop their enemie's hearts from beating....well that seems like even modern day soldiers would find that hard to beat.

So why doesn't their magic work like that? Just asking.

 

[Ursa major]

I can't comment on magic in Fantasy in general, but I can comment on magic in GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire (albeit trying to avoid giving spoilers).

At the beginning of the story, magic plays little or no apparent part in lives on Westeros (the continent where the story is mostly set). The people in the Prologue are almost as surprised by what they find as we would be. The only difference is that people in Westeros probably know that magic once existed, whereas we assume that magic never has here. They also don't have gunpowder (as far as I know), which rather sabotages any use of guns or artillery. There is at least one explosive substance, but this is too unstable to use as a propellant.


By the way, a few words of friendly warning. If you really want to read the books, it would be best if you avoided dipping into the GRRM sub-forum: it is full of spoilers (some of them in the titles of threads).

 

[thaddeus6th]

In my book there is a practical element. The veneficus faber and veneficus pharmacopola are mages who run shops selling magical goods and magical potions (respectively), the proceeds of which help to provide the tower [where the mages reside] with income.

Mages also carve gylphs into city walls to strengthen them against the elements and siegecraft.

They're largely prohibited from directly acting in temporal affairs, though, for reasons of lore. In worlds where they have freedom of action it does seem likely that magocracy would be the default form of government.

 

[stephen.samuels]

Brandon Sanderson deals with this issue in Alloy of Law so that might be of interest. Similarly the Supernatural (tv series) always deal with this issue with some style.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So why doesn't their magic work like that? Just asking.

It is a real problem in fantasy. In some novels, the characters have become like gods through developing magical abilities. The impact of RPG's, I think, means magic is has become all about outright expression of power.

It's ironic, really, because when you look to Tolkien, magic is so subtle. Gandalf makes fireworks and brings light to his staff in Moria, and the one ring makes you invisible. That's almost it. Gandalf's biggest power is his ability to influence people. It might even be argued that LOTR is a low-magic fantasy - definitely by some of today's standards!

 

[thaddeus6th]

Brian, that's a good point. It's remarkable that the number of spells Gandalf casts can probably be counted on one hand.

I think balancing magic's splendiferousness with some sort of price (whether it's pain, or effort or something similar) can help. That way mages can still do super-incredible things but they can't go overboard.

 

[nubins]

I think its down to storytelling and not much else. But you are right, it doesnt make 'sense' and doesnt seem all that special.

I've often wondered if I could come up with an interesting story where a magic wielding fantasy society encounters a modern or futuristic one. Often magic is constrained so the story doesnt end up being "the mage found out and clicked his figners and everything was ok". That's an exaggeration, but if a wizard can stop peoples hearts then noone could defeat him unless he was unaware of what was coming. Bayaz in the First Law Trilogy makes a man explode, but it visibly drains him afterwards.. otherwise if it didn't he wouldn't have needed help from the others I think

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

And the real problem is that if their wizards could simply snap their fingers and stop their enemie's hearts from beating....well that seems like even modern day soldiers would find that hard to beat.

So why doesn't their magic work like that? Just asking.

A few reasons, not the least of which is: because that would be boring. It would cease to be a fantasy story basically, and become role-playing game fiction, like Dungeons & Dragons or some such.

Magic needs to have an understandable system for use, but if it's too explicit or generally useful it begins to replace technology in the sense that you'd have cars that run on magic. And as a turn of phrase goes, "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

You'd quickly find your useful magic replacing all sorts of technological doodads and suddenly what was supposed to be magic has become industry. It becomes mundane by it's ubiquity. You have a magic light? Great, now there's magic lights on every street corner across the world. Not very magical then, is it? You have a simple spell that stops a man's heart, great, now teach it to this army. It just becomes another mass produced weapon instead of something truly different, exotic, or mysterious.

 

[ratsy]

I think most Fantasy books are inclined to have some sort of a Magical element. I know I enjoy Magic in a book as long as it is done well. I am not a fan of the all powerful wizard/magician who can do anything...time travel, shoot balls of fire, fly...it is all a little too much...and then you have to ask yourself why do they even have a battle and then the magician comes in last minute to destroy the enemy. Why didn't he just destroy them first?

Anyways... In the book I am planning and attempting to write, I have a mystical element. There are no magicians but more of a spell book that needs a "key" to use. So even though I am not including "magic" there is a supernatural side to it.

 

[Drakai]

This always bothered me too. Magic is almost always weak and useless. I guess the main reason why magic is integrated into fantasy this way is that it needs to be on equal power with physical strength. Or at least similar in power. Otherwise it would be boring reading books. The knight raises his sword, archers and aim as ready as can be and then bam magician stops their hearts. Battle over, nothing to see, return to your homes. But still, it doesn't make much sense.

 

[MstrTal]

Others have already mentioned the story telling aspect and the need for an underlying system so Ill leave that be. other considerations would be an innate need on the readers part, the writers as well, for a bit of escapism. Even if we do not know the technical aspects of guns and explosives these things are parts of our daily world so a given. Magic on the other hand is a fantastical escape that lets even the most stodgy dream a little.

I have also heard it put forth that magic can be like nuclear weapons. In worlds/novels that are positively rife with magic the wizards either offset one another or are to busy counter spelling one another to be much of a bother to the more mundane soldiers. Or something like that.

 

[Mirannan]

Two ways that magic is kept under control (and prevented from completely dominating society) in most literary fantasy worlds are: Magic requires a "spark" that is quite rare and innate to those who have it - sometimes inherited, sometimes not. If only one in a hundred thousand has any magical ability at all, then its social impact will be limited unless a mage is a rough equivalent of nuclear artillery.

Another, perhaps commoner way, is for magic to require the sacrifice (or sometimes a highly likely potential sacrifice) of something important; someone's life, perhaps lifespan, the mage's soul, large amounts of extremely expensive spell triggers, the mage's sanity.

A third common magic-depowering device is the requirement for decades of extremely difficult study to become any good at it. This means that anyone who is a really powerful mage isn't going to be that way for very long.

(I said "literary fantasy" because not all fantasy is literary. D&D has been mentioned; just about any D&D world makes very little sense, being a deathworld teeming with improbably lethal monsters anywhere outside a radius of perhaps 5 miles from any town. OK and fun for a game - not so much so for something to read about.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There is a difference between weak and useless, and difficult, time consuming, and costly (in terms of the consequences). A nuclear weapon is immensely powerful, but the knowledge and the resources needed to make one aren't widely available (not to mention the expense) and producing and possessing one comes with enormous responsibility -- basically not to use it, if you can help it -- because the consequences are so devastating. The weapon is not less powerful because of these limitations.

But consider magic that is not on such a grand scale. Magic that can be done with a snap of the fingers is about as interesting as flipping a switch on the wall. If you have a character who can kill with a snap of his fingers, you might as well arm him with a gun ... actually, the gun would be better, because guns, at least, have an aura of power about them.

So you make it harder. The ability to stop another person's heart with magic is limited to a few, and they have to touch the other person to make it happen. That's dangerous if the other person is armed, so it's likely the magician wouldn't try it except as a last resort (when the other person's knife is already at his neck, for instance). Maybe the ability to stop (or start) a heart can only be learned as part of the study of the healing arts. If so, those who can do it might consider it unethical (or worse). As with doctors in our world: "first, do no harm." So again, it's something a character might do only as a last, desperate resource, and then perhaps live with consuming guilt afterward because they've perverted their art. How he deals with that guilt might be more interesting than if he had just done it and moved on.

Or let's look at traditional beliefs about magic in our own world. The shaman believes he can stop a man's heart and the rest of the tribe believes it as well, but nobody expects him to be able to do it with a snap of his fingers. He'll be up all night chanting and dancing. And it's precisely because his magic is so hard to do, that people respect it and fear it.


.

 

[Astner]

Primarily because if a mage had the power to stop his enemies's hearts from beating by the snap of a finger that mage wouldn't be able to take part of any dramatic battles. Because in the back of the reader's head the knowledge that this character could stop his enemy's heart at any time ruins the suspense. And if it so happen that the mage wouldn't use this spell it would come across as stupid.

Magic is one of those setting elements that have to be handled carefully for this very reason. Its purpose is to add another dimension to the setting, not ruining it by working as a plot device.

 

[stephen.samuels]

I think the magic shouldn't supplant the story, and there should be a element of personality attached to each characters' ability. A reason for why their magic operates in that way. Essentially I feel that magic should enhance the story, not make it descend into silliness.

 

[Glisterspeck]

Stories with all powerful characters can be interesting too, though. Mr Manhattan's story arc is my favorite in Watchmen, and he has this sort of power. But he struggles with it. Or more so, with absurdity of it, I suppose.

 

[assasin]

In some series magic is used in a more practical manner, maybe not to the extent that it should be, but still.

Kingkiller chronicles. While the magic would easily allow a more "punk" type setting without it theres still sympathy lamps, refridgeration boxes, magic being used to track down criminals, etc.

wheel of time. the windfinders use weaves of air to assist their ships. The gateways are used to transport food, etc.


Brandon Sanderson. Soulstamps are used for healing, soulcasters for food and buildings and ruscuing people from caveins.



At the end of the day it depends on how the setting is built. In a song of ice and fire magic isnt used much because its been in decline for a while and a lot of the more powerful magic seems to involve a heavy price, such as human sacrifice or people being born with the power being rare like the wargs and greenseers.

 

[Astner]

Stories with all powerful characters can be interesting too, though. Mr Manhattan's story arc is my favorite in Watchmen, and he has this sort of power. But he struggles with it. Or more so, with absurdity of it, I suppose.

You have to consider Dr. Manhattan's role in the story. He was pretty much uninvolved until the very end, and the only reason why the end came as a surprise was due to the antagonist blurring Dr. Manhattan's foresight.

If Dr. Manhattan had the incentive to change the world then the world would've been remade in his image. The character worked because he was so distant from the troubles of the world.

On top of that Adrian Veidt and Roshak are far more popular than Dr. Manhattan due to their personae and struggles. Don't get me wrong, Dr. Manhattan was an innovative concept with an interesting role, but he was more of a setting element than an actual character.

 

[Glisterspeck]

If Dr. Manhattan had the incentive to change the world then the world would've been remade in his image. The character worked because he was so distant from the troubles of the world.

On top of that Adrian Veidt and Roshak are far more popular than Dr. Manhattan due to their personae and struggles. Don't get me wrong, Dr. Manhattan was an innovative concept with an interesting role, but he was more of a setting element than an actual character.

I think that's the power of an ensemble cast -- there's a favorite for every reader, some more popular some less. For me, his character has equally compelling struggles; greater really.

He gets to the core of an omnipotent/omniscient being's conflict with predestination, in that he knows all (except when affected by tachyons), yet because all is predestined, he has no free will to act upon it. Having some of his humanity remaining to him, and so faced with the absurd, he becomes more and more distant, ends up, basically, collapsing into that dwindling humanity, symbolized by the machine on Mars... etc.

Thing is, you don't have to be god-like to have soul-crushing confrontations with such absurdities. I relate very much with the feelings Jon goes through, and at times, also adapt a crawl in a hole by myself strategy to deal with them, divorcing myself from humanity. It's probably why my favorite authors include Kafka, Camus, Vonnegut and Borges.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

In the Sword and the Flame series of fantasy novels by Joel Rosenberg, there are a couple of very good reasons why mages don't get involved in battles.

Mages get addicted to magic. The more they learn, the more they must learn. Really powerful mages lock themselves in their towers like nerds in the mum's basement, playing games...I mean, studying 24/7.

Mages get killed. If your side in the battle has a mage, and the other side doesn't, they know the best way to even the odds. Kill the mage. This tends to discourage mages from taking any part in warfare.

He also has the "rare spark", so not everyone can do magic anyway.