Why isn't magic practical in fantasy?

[Teresa Edgerton]

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.

You suggest what I think is a very good point. If someone was that powerful, why would they care about the petty squabbles of ordinary humans?

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.

For me, this is the point where magic becomes boring -- if you can use it for utterly mundane purposes, then it, too, becomes utterly mundane. Is a magical refrigeration box more exciting than the refrigerator I have in my kitchen? Some might say "yes," but for me it's a resounding "no." I see no good reason, in terms of story, for reducing magicians to mechanics.

 

[jastius]

once I read that a lot of star trek's plots in the television series started to revolve around how the transporter was broken so the crew couldn't just beam everyone to safety and fire all the phasers and make it all better. the fact is with godlike powers of any kind you really spoil your plot.
but that would be a way of ending a story fast, if you wanted to run with it. sort of like the cartoon godzilla versus bambi. ( see bambi grazing in spring meadow. see godzilla, giant monster. see godzilla's giant foot squash bambi to bits. the end) done in two seconds.
most magic as depicted in most stories I've read have limited the plot breaking ability of magic by there being some kind of collateral damage coming into play with its use.
ie. i. power drain upon using magic, ii. not enough magic starter power available to use, iii. power from magic coming from within the individual, iv. limits of magic against technology-( these are not the droids you are looking for-type thing)
v. invulnerability to magic, vi. magic taking to long to invoke or results being inexact in duplication. etc.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

I'm facing a similar problem with my super hero WIP. If the powers are too awesome, then there's no contest. Like Superman with no such thing as kryptonite.

 

[Gumboot]

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?

It seems to me you're making an unjustified assumption that magic in fact does rule their worlds. In some fantasy perhaps, but your particular example below is notable for it's almost complete absence of magic.

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.

I recommend reading a book before attempting to comment on it. I don't know where to begin with the above statement, but I'll merely point out that Martin's world is medieval, and indeed, a small force of 18th Century soldiers probably would do quite well against a medieval army (I think you grossly overestimate the 18th Century army's effectiveness, but never mind). The same would be true of any significantly disparate battle between forces of one era, and forces of several centuries later in history.

I don't so much see this as a weakness, however, but rather as a pretty obvious dictate of historical accuracy and authenticity.

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.

What "wizards"? There are no "wizards" in Martin's world. Seriously. Read a book, then comment on it.

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

Just throwing this out there, but perhaps because the writer didn't want it to work like that?

Your question is meaningless. Let me illustrate;

"Why didn't JK Rowlings make it so Harry Potter could kill people just by thinking about them?"

"Why didn't Homer make it that Achilles could come back from the dead?"

"Why didn't Bram Stoker make it so vampires were immune to sunlight?"

 

[Gumboot]

And as a turn of phrase goes, "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Other way round.

 

[AMB]

Other way round.

Depends whether he was going for the law or the inversion.

 

[allmywires]

I'm facing a similar problem with my super hero WIP. If the powers are too awesome, then there's no contest. Like Superman with no such thing as kryptonite.

I always go by the logic that for an advantage over others you have to pay, and pay lots. My characters have what could be classed as 'superpowers' - not in a superhero way, though - but the small things they can do are offset by the hangover they get afterwards, which is just like an alcohol induced one: ie, the longer they do it the worse the hangover is, if they haven't done it for a while the hangover is bad, and they can build up a tolerance to it in time.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In my Rune of Unmaking books, a huge clash of warring magicians caused a world-wide catastrophe several generations back -- some of the consequences of which are still very present -- so magicians are now much more cautious in how they use their magic.

There is another war going on, and powerful magicians on both sides, but they've been wary of any direct conflict between them, leaving most of the fighting to ordinary armies, so there has been no resolution, and the fighting goes on and on and on, until everyone is war-weary and growing disillusioned on both sides.

 

[Astner]

Other way round.

To the ignorant they goes both ways.

On a more serious note; I agree with that a medieval fantasy settings should reflect some historical accuracy and implement the element of magic to supplement it. There's no reason to wield a sword if magic is effective as guns.

You further have to examine magic from a military standpoint. Why feed and train a thousand men to use conventional weaponry, when you could educate a handful of them to become powerful mages and fight wars more effectively?

These details are among the key differences between a fantasy story and a fairy tale.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

I always go by the logic that for an advantage over others you have to pay, and pay lots. My characters have what could be classed as 'superpowers' - not in a superhero way, though - but the small things they can do are offset by the hangover they get afterwards, which is just like an alcohol induced one: ie, the longer they do it the worse the hangover is, if they haven't done it for a while the hangover is bad, and they can build up a tolerance to it in time.

There must always be a price to pay, whether it's magic or super powers or advanced technology. Otherwise, it's like the apocryphal Space Marine story, where the unstoppable hero walks into the room where his enemies have all conveniently gathered, he kills them all without raising a sweat, end of story, game over, booooooring.

I have a shapeshifter character who uses up so much energy in the process that she could literally eat a horse afterwards. And, no, I don't mean that meat scandal in Europe. And when she does eat, something else happens to her...

For some other characters, the price will be standing out, effectively painting a target on their costumes. When you're the most successful, everyone else wants to make their reputation by taking you down. Like gunslingers in the Wild West.

And they all have vulnerabilites, whether a kryptonite-analog, or all the non-powered people they love who could be taken hostage, or something else I haven't thought of yet but promise I will.

 

[jastius]

You could try the collateral damage device.... hero has magic but if he uses it bad guys have a way of wiping out his family/ long lost love/ planet/ puppy...comic book collection...

 

[oddhero]

Perhaps it's also a case of allowing us to identify with the characters: if one has a magical power that's too great, we might not empathize, or rather the character would not operate in the normal envelope of limitations. Very interesting point, tho: if a mage could stop a heart (or hearts) easily, then regular armies and indeed confrontations and ways of conducting warfare would be instantly upended. Your world-building would be tremendously challenging unless the ability was somehow hugely restricted...fascinating point...

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

Yes, it's a perpetual problem for the writer. Since, IMHO, magic doesn't really work, if you suggest that it does, you are going to run into some sort of problem.
Lots of people seriously believe that magic works in our own world. However, once one moves beyond the primitive society where any event or mishap is inexplicable and magic seems as good an explanation as any, there is the problem of explaining this: if it works, why is it no damn use for anything? Why isn't it used for removing all the guns and explosives from Syria, or manufacturing Ford cars, making Hugo Chavez immortal, or doing all the CIA's espionage? Does that make sense?
To fantasy worlds: It's perfectly possible to write a fantasy novel that doesn't have any magic in it at all. An example is Spedding's "A Walk in the Dark" trilogy. If there is some magic, the writer has to explain why it isn't used for everything. As discussed earlier, the magic has to be rare, or hard to do, otherwise it starts to look like everyday technology.

[If you think about it, a satnav looks more magical than a lot of the stuff in fantasy novels. A pocket sized box, and it gets signals from satellites in the sky, and works out where it is, and has a detailed map of the whole country inside it, and it talks to you in a funny voice, and it's hardly ever wrong. Enough magical power to kill many a quest novel stone dead. Beat that, Gandalf!]

One begins to see the attraction of having a small amount of magic in a story, just enough to liven things up but not enough to arouse too many awkward questions in the reader's mind. Letting things remain difficult gives more scope for quests, character conflict and suchlike.

Some readers like Big Magic, but that's perhaps more suited to the sort of book where things are drawn with a broad brush, to avoid inviting awkward questions. One meets Big Magic a lot in comic books and animation.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I am a bit puzzled by the assumption that if there is magic in a world, then unless the author specifically imposes some limitation, the default option is that it will be good for doing everything and the power would be unlimited.

Why should that be the case? Why, in anybody's mind, does magic = omnipotence. It never did (and never has) among people who actually believed (still believe) in magic. Is it RPG and video games that have imposed this new meaning on the term? Or poorly conceived fantasy novels?

And even supposing that the magic in a particular fantasy world had huge, incredible, and amazingly wide potential, would magicians necessarily have reached the point where they had harnessed that potential? (If so, the characters sound more like gods than magicians. And surely they would be treated as such by ordinary people) Might not magic still be comparatively in its infancy? Why suppose that if there is magic in a fantasy novel the art should have reached its peak?

As several people have pointed out already, in story terms that wouldn't work very well.

 

[Mirannan]

Cosmic Geoff - Clarke's Third Law comes to mind here. I'm working on a story in which that is the main theme; it's probably already been done, although nothing immediately comes to mind.

 

[Glitch]

if it works, why is it no damn use for anything? Why isn't it used for removing all the guns and explosives from Syria, or manufacturing Ford cars, making Hugo Chavez immortal, or doing all the CIA's espionage? Does that make sense?

Interesting point. In a planned wip I have some characters who could do everything you describe. They decide not to because once they do intervene, they'll have to keep it up. Their existence would then be taken up by monitoring our every move, making sure we don't step out of line. And where do you draw that line? A gun used for hunting could also be used to kill another person.

Not only does this prospect bore them, it also frightens them. Once their existence is revealed to the world, there is no going back. Who is to say their powers are all conquering. Could a government develop a weapon that would actually defeat them?

I am a bit puzzled by the assumption that if there is magic in a world, then unless the author specifically imposes some limitation, the default option is that it will be good for doing everything and the power would be unlimited.

Technically I have imposed a limitation on the use of magic in my story even though the power could be said to be unlimited.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It sounds, though, as if your characters are going to be too wise to test the limits of their powers, and therefore probably don't know them. (Could they dry up the oceans? Cause the planet to spin backwards? That sort of thing.)

But, yes, having to deal with the consequences of their actions is a reasonable (even an inevitable) limitation on characters who can use magic. From only the little you have explained, it sounds like you are writing a story where the magic doesn't just serve as set-dressing, and may be a vehicle for exploring some important themes.

It feels like you've given a lot of thought to this, instead of just throwing the magic in for fun.

 

[Glitch]

It feels like you've given a lot of thought to this, instead of just throwing the magic in for fun.

The magical elements were always a part of the story. As I developed the idea I found common themes in other story ideas involving magic. Weaving the themes together helped bring me to my current position.


All part of world building I guess.

 

[Astner]

I am a bit puzzled by the assumption that if there is magic in a world, then unless the author specifically imposes some limitation, the default option is that it will be good for doing everything and the power would be unlimited.

Why should that be the case? Why, in anybody's mind, does magic = omnipotence. It never did (and never has) among people who actually believed (still believe) in magic. Is it RPG and video games that have imposed this new meaning on the term? Or poorly conceived fantasy novels?

In role-playing games and video games magic is clearly restricted to rules. If you play a mage in any game you have a select list of spells to pick from.

It's more in movies and novel series that magic has been shaped into this concept where the only rule is "if you have enough of it, you can do it".

The reason for this is that readers aren't directly exposed to the mechanics and rules of the system that the writer may have intended. Magic is used only when it can solve a problem and unless countered by a stronger magic it always works.

So much like a sports team that have won fifty matches and not lost a single one, you're going to assume that the streak continues to fifty-one.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In role-playing games and video games magic is clearly restricted to rules. If you play a mage in any game you have a select list of spells to pick from.

I haven't played any of these games for a long time, so correct me if I am wrong (which I may well be): The spells are all chosen for their potential usefulness in situations that will actually come up in the game (if it continues long enough)? If a mage advances to one of the higher levels the spells can become very powerful? In most (or all?) of the games the spells are not hard to work -- that is, they may fail, but if they do work it's just a matter of casting them, not of intensive preparation or of spells that may require hours or days to take effect?

If I am right, or mostly right, wouldn't that be (potentially) one of the places where readers might get the idea that (however you get the spells in the first place -- buy them or earn them) working them ought to be the equivalent of snapping your fingers to mow down numerous enemies? And, maybe, the idea that if it can't be done as easily as that, then the reasons have to be explained?

I know that books and movies are responsible for these ideas, too, but a very large number of fantasy books over the last couple of decades (and probably most movies) are based on fantasy role-playing games of one sort or another. Sure, the games are inspired by literary sources, but adapted for the games, and I think some readers take some of the rules so seriously that they take it for granted that books should model their magic after them.