Activity

Gosh. I should have known that Sanderson was the one who used the terminology of hard and soft magic systems to differentiate between the two ends of the spectrum of handling magic! *facedesk* Honestly, guys, my memory is so broken sometimes…

@taylorclogston I guess, at the end of the day, it comes down to (again) me simply wanting to define the terms (again) according to my own liking. So (again), semantics. Which, to be honest, doesn’t generally move the substantive discussion forward. Eek!

Simply put, if I had my way, hard magic systems would be denominated with a more scientific label that doesn’t include the word magic, just to differentiate it from what I would consider *real* magic, which by nature has an element of the transcendent. No hate towards hard magic systems! I just don’t think they are the best developers of deeply abiding, experienced themes. Like @josiah said, there is something lost.
Granted, there are things gained by hard magic systems as well, which ought to be explored and used to their full potential!

Also, I put things out of order when defining hard and soft magic systems and defined them according to what they are (generally) most useful for in terms of plot building and conflict resolution, rather than sticking to the rational vs. mystic definition, which is the correct one. Apologies! I have, at one point, read a summary of Sanderson’s articles, @hope but having not heard the tale from the horse’s own mouth, my memory is invalid as a confidently airtight resource. As I have discovered through this conversation. 😀

Steering back to the question, “Why does magic need to be mystical?” I’m hard put to come up with an answer. I’m not being simplistic or sarcastic when I say this, but the rhetorical retorts that come to mind are things like: Why does music need to be harmonious? Why does architecture have to be structurally sound? And the answer being: Because in being/doing those things, it is best fulfilling it’s strengths as an idea or concept.

Which clearly shows that it all comes down to our definition of magic, which I, regrettably, did not define in my original comment. Nor will I attempt to define it now. My thoughts on the matter have become much less formulated because of the sharpenings that everyone’s comments have given me, so I hesitate to go there without thinking over it further.

My definitions were mixed up from the get-go, so the wording throughout my analysis is not what I would like it to be now. :/ That’s what I get for starting my comment at midnight… XD

Thank you, @taylorclogston , for including that excerpt of Tolkien’s letter. I enjoyed reading it a lot, and it helped me see where my terminology is all mixed up.

@josiah I am so glad that you mentioned something about the theme of deification in Sanderson’s works. That is something which I had picked out in almost all of his major series, and I was certain it had something to do with his Mormon beliefs. But until you said something, I didn’t have actual proof that my thoughts were correct. To me, seeing how well he incorporates that theme into his writing is encouraging, because it gives me hope that we can do the same with our theological beliefs in a way that is clear, artistic, and anything but preachy.

@hope-ann I think you’re right. I got caught up in the presentation/mechanics, rather than specifically addressing the underlying foundation of magic systems themselves.

As rambling as your paragraphs may have been, I enjoyed them! And I think at the end of the day I agree with you that elements of both hard and soft can be used to make an excellent magic system. I think when it comes down to it, I’m going to write magic systems that are technically a cross between hard and soft – a bit harder (but not Sanderson-level hard) in design, but very soft in presentation.

@kate I’m pleased that you’re also a fan of soft magic. XD It must be an INFP/feeler thing.

(Real-world parallel to my soft magic goals: I love theology and can study and talk it at length, but at the end of the day, what keeps my heart beating for Christ is the sheer beauty, art, mystery, and transcendence of the Gospel, and how it really can’t be classified and compartmentalized with words; to understand it, one must experience and love it. End rant.)

Fascinating, and I think very accurate analysis of how we should introduce our magic systems to our readers. Just for clarification, this is where you’re talking about presentation/mechanics, right?

I especially loved your summary:

“The man who is first romanced by the simple, orderly face of a watch will eventually wonder about the engine that makes it run, and find himself ready to open the back and take a peek inside.”

What I love about this is that soft magic systems, because there is something transcendent/unknown about them, almost automatically trigger that wondering desire in the heart of people to understand more and start to take apart the watch, so to speak.

In fact, I think this longing/desire to explore further is one of the main feelings that we, as artists, are trying to evoke in our readers with respect to spiritual truths. We want our stories to be the watch-face that catches the eye and sparks that longing for something more, something beyond, prompting a search into the inner workings of our worldview and of the God who holds it together. It was something akin to this which drew Lewis to faith, as he encountered something in George MacDonalds stories which he could not explain and yet effected him deeply – for the rest of his life, in fact!

Perhaps we could take your theory, @kate , and apply it to our writing in general, and not simply to magic systems alone?