Is there too much magic in fantasy?

[Tower75]

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.

Please, no Bernard 'oh the master of books' Cornwall. Sorry, no disrespect meant, I just have a major bug bear with that fellow.

 

[Vince W]

Please, no Bernard 'oh the master of books' Cornwall. Sorry, no disrespect meant, I just have a major bug bear with that fellow.

Fair enough.

The Princess Bride by William Goldman just came to me. The film is one of my all time favourites, but the book is also very good.

As long as you don't count miracles as magic.

 

[Boreas]

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.

Exactly! When it's used in those rare, yet critical moments, it engenders that primal feeling of awe. Like the Druids of old, during Celtic Europe in the Bronze and Iron Ages. I always envision some ancient, primal Pict ceremony that triggers fear and awe in the amygdala of those watching/participating.

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.

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.

I felt that "The Hunger Games" was quite firmly based in the real world in the very near future, so I think of it as science fiction.

And I actually loved David Gemmell's novels, especially his earlier Drenai books and the Jon Shannow tales. I read them shortly after I had gotten into fantasy and right after I read Moorcock.

"Hunting the Ghost Dancer" by A. A. Attanasio is a good example of fantasy without overt magic. It's an early man novel. I've also read two of his science fiction novels, "Radix" and "Last Legends of Earth". Both were excellent, though I found "Radix" was initially difficult to get into. Tremendous scope in both books, especially "Last Legends of Earth".

I would also recommend "Beowulf".

I haven't read Stephen Lawhead's "Byzantium" but it's supposed to be very good.

I also loved the prose of Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic: "Sailing to Sarantium" and "Lord of Emperors". Many characters, events and conflicts are based directly on real world analogues during the Byzantium Empire. His newer novel, "Under Heaven" was also quite a good read, based on some Chinese dynasty during the 700s (I'm not very familiar with Chinese history at all, I'm afraid).

Robert Holdstock's "Mythago Wood", naturally.

Also, Steven Brust's "To Reign in Hell" - a wonderful fantasy about creation, the rebellion in Heaven and the subsequent Fall.

 

[raduz]

Please, no Bernard 'oh the master of books' Cornwall. Sorry, no disrespect meant, I just have a major bug bear with that fellow.

What's your gripe with him? I rather liked the few of his books I have read (no Sharpe, just Warlord series and Grail Quest series). Not that I want to start an argument, I'm just interested.

 

[Danny Franks]

And I actually loved David Gemmell's novels, especially his earlier Drenai books and the Jon Shannow tales. I read them shortly after I had gotten into fantasy and right after I read Moorcock.

I really enjoyed Gemmell's last trilogy, centred around Aeneas. Great take on the Trojan War mythos, with little in the way of magic, but lots of character and intrigue. I'd recommend those books to anyone.

Unfortunately, I probably read his other novels too late, and I was too old and too well-read in the fantasy genre to really enjoy them. Legend was an entertaining yarn, but I found the characters to have almost no depth or complexity to them. It just felt dated.

What's your gripe with him? I rather liked the few of his books I have read (no Sharpe, just Warlord series and Grail Quest series). Not that I want to start an argument, I'm just interested.

It might be the same issues I have with him. That is, all his other books feel like 'Sharpe in the Middle Ages' or 'Sharpe in Arthurian times'. I really enjoyed the Sharpe books when I read them. An amazingly researched series, and they're actually responsible for a lot of the general knowledge I have of the Napoleonic Wars, but everything else he's written pales in comparison, in my view. And I don't think he's very good at writing the books with a different voice, so they feel simplistic and formulaic to me.

 

[Tower75]

What's your gripe with him? I rather liked the few of his books I have read (no Sharpe, just Warlord series and Grail Quest series). Not that I want to start an argument, I'm just interested.

A few things. One: I just don't like his writing style. In my opinion, it's too cold, and calculated, and most of the time, boring. He can write about historical events, but not characters. Every single protagonist is a 6" tall superman, who is more amazing then his peers, who gets all the girl, and who all seem to have the personality of a wooden toy. I've read all the Sharpes, and I can honestly say, I don't know Sharpe at all. Other then he's a murdering, womanising, a-hole. Hey, sounds like Thomas of Hookton.

His can't seem to keep track of who to focus on. Numerous times he'll swap perspective of characters, quite a lot of the time during the same sentence. It's just my opinion, but I prefer it when the whole chapter is one character's perspective, or at least make it obvious that we're changing character with a break in the chapter. It's just messy, and, again, the historical setting in his books seem to be his characters, not the actual characters.

His continuity is nonexistent. All of his prequels contradict his original works.

Ah, and despite writing for 20 odd years about Redcoats, and The 95 Rifles, he knows NOTHING about muskets, or rifles, or firearms in general. See my Introduction thread for a proper whine. Some may find this petty, but if you're going to write a series of novels who's main focus are rifle wielding troops, then I would suggest you get the facts correct!

What makes it worse, is that in 20 plus years, the author hasn't corrected himself or even attempted to get his firearm, or military knowledge up to date, thus showing the colours of the smug, arrogant bloke.

He has single handedly ruined all further works about the military in Black Powder times. Every author who takes BC as an inspiration for writing copies his damn errors, 'cos, you know, Cornwall is clearly the gospel in these matters.

It infuriates me to no end that he's grabbed this mainstream holding in historical literature, and every book of his has about a gerzillion 5 star reviews all saying, 'It's amazing. Sharpes' amazing and does things with swords, and stuff.'

This must be how fantasy authors feel about Twilight.

The fact that every damn book has a 'If you like Sharpe, you'll love this!' sticker on it makes me so mad that I've been known to take the book to the rifle range and slam a one ounce musket ball through the thing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

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

I'm a big fan of low-magic fantasies - my personal favourite authors in this area include:

Joe Abercrombie
Scott Lynch
Douglas Hullick
Anne Lyle

All necessarily have a degree of magic in them, but it's very limited.

I could also throw in George R R Martin's Game of Thrones into the mix, though that does have stronger supernatural elements which in themselves may be seen as an expression of magic.

I'd also be tempted to throw Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series into the mix. There is magic, more so than any of the above, but I never found it particularly over-powering - if I recall correctly! - and certainly not like some more modern fantasies where any major problem can be solved with the equivalent of "fireball".

 

[RMP]

I was about to chip in with Joe Abercrombie, he's good for low/no magic.

Personally I like there to be at least a little magic in the mix - I think ASOIAF is about the right balance. It's a magical environment but there aren't many practitioners and there's a real cost to it.

I really like Joe Abercrombie, but after eating up The Heroes and Red Country in quick succession, I missed having a bit of magic in there. They left me feeling like I was reading made up historical fiction rather than fantasy, as enjoyable as they were.

Also, to chip in on the Bernard Cornwall conversation, in my experience his characters and plots can feel a little phoned in but I'd struggle to name anyone who writes battle sequences better than he does (his descriptions of Crecy and Agincourt in particular stand out in my memory).

 

[Tower75]

Thanks for the suggestions. Also, I must admit, I'm a little fan-boy for Joe Abercrombie at the moment.

The first book I found was The Heroes, not knowing it was a part of a wider world, so I've just picked up and finished the First Law trilogy, and I loved it. I really, really like his writing style.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I'll second the excellence of Scott Lynch as well (although checking, it seems I already mentioned that...)

On Cornwell, I've got a lot of Sharpe books and the archer ones, but I've got to agree that the protagonists are very similar. One of the reasons I stopped reading Sharpe, as well as returning to fantasy, was the high level of similarity between many of the books. I did enjoy them, but after quite a few it felt like I knew entirely how a book would go.

 

[chongjasmine]

I don't really care about magic in a fantasy series. I care more for the plot.
I like the adventure-seeking nature of the main characters in a fantasy novel.
I like stories with great characterization. Magic isn't that important to me.

 

[Vince W]

I enjoyed both Sharpe and the Grail books, but I will agree completely that the characters are pretty much the same, just in different settings.

I see Cornwell's books as adventure stories and not high literature. There are times when you just want a fast, engaging read without any real mental commitment.

 

[Danny Franks]

Also, to chip in on the Bernard Cornwall conversation, in my experience his characters and plots can feel a little phoned in but I'd struggle to name anyone who writes battle sequences better than he does (his descriptions of Crecy and Agincourt in particular stand out in my memory).

His account of the Battle of Waterloo was fantastic too. Yes, it's daft that Sharpe manages to be everywhere important, in that battle, but it's worth it, to get such a factually correct, yet personal account of all the phases of the battle.

He did the same with the battles of the Peninsular War, in the earlier books. The characters do become ciphers through which an account of the battle is told, but those accounts are very well written and easy to understand.

For a series with minimal traditional 'magic', I couldn't recommend the Farseer Trilogy highly enough. Great, great series of books, which focuses far more on character, on the stark choices facing a people under grave threat, and on the machinations of different factions within a relatively small royal court. And Fitz will forever be one of my most loved fantasy heroes.

 

[Moggle]

Complaining that there is too much fantasy in a fantasy novel is like complaining that there is too much advanced technology in a scifi book.

 

[Tower75]

Complaining that there is too much fantasy in a fantasy novel is like complaining that there is too much advanced technology in a scifi book.

When did I, or others in this thread, complain about too much fantasy in fantasy?

This is about magic, and its seemingly everywhere-ness. You don't NEED magic in a fantasy book to be classed as a fantasy book.

Unless you're classing "magic" as the only classification for "fantasy".

 

[Brian G Turner]

I like it when magic is rare, frightening, and powerful.

I think that's worth quoting.

 

[BAYLOR]

You might want to try L Sprague De Camps Lest Darkness Falls This book is sometimes considered a fantasy. It is the story of a 20th century. man Martin Paddy who finds himself transported back to Sixth century Rome via a lighting bolt which, is the only fanatical element in the whole story . After that, swords sandals and adventure with no magic. Its an excellent book .

Though it not considered Fantasy you might also want to check out The High Crusade by Poul Anderson . In this book leans from an advanced civilization drive on earth during the middle age with the intent of conquest . Lets just say this don't got arriving to plan. The book is hilariously funny.

 

[The Big Peat]

I once replied to some "What fantasy tropes are overused" thread somewhere with 'Magic'. And I'll stand by that. Magic is ubiquitous and doesn't have to be.


That said - I am happy that fantasy has a range of different magic levels. Including barely non-existent. Lot of names already been mentioned - I'd add that some of the City Watch and Industrial Revolution books in Discworld have some supernatural phenomena, some small uses of ritual magic, and that's it.

 

[biodroid]

As long as there is a sense of wonder and the plot and characters are good I don't mind low magic. But there should be creatures and monsters scattered about or it is just a historical novel.

 

[Brian G Turner]

There are a few fantasy elements in Robert Fabbri's Vespasian series, which I find interesting when it's otherwise a solid historical fiction.