[Perry] Magic Systems: Arbitrary Versus Rules
Magic systems generally come in two flavors: Arbitrary or Ruled.
Arbitrary magic systems are ones where there are no rules to govern how the magic works or the rules are loose enough that it might as well be random.
An example of this type of system at work can be seen in Harry Potter and various other stories more geared toward a younger audience. The magic present in that world is fanciful and varied but it doesn’t follow any sort of natural laws. Things just sort of happen for no rhyme or reason and none of the characters can explain why it works this way.
While this can be used well for tension or solving story elements, it generally tends to lead to a lot of questions about how exactly the magic works. Questions arise like, how come nobody has a spell to cure Harry’s eyesight when there exist spells that do things like regrow bones in someone’s arm or a magic potion that can regrow skin?
The essential problem with arbitrary magic systems can be summed up with the following: If the author can’t explain why magic works a certain way, the author also can’t explain why magic doesn’t work a certain way either.
This isn’t a blanket criticism of arbitrary magic systems. They’re often used to fantastic effect but it should be noted that in many of these cases, magic isn’t used systematically but more as plot devices. An example of this use of an arbitrary magic system can be found in The Lord of the Rings universe.
On the other hand, ruled magic systems are ones where the author does their best to explain how and why the magic system works the way it does.
An example of this type of system can be found in many of the books in the science fiction genre (Old Man’s War for example) or Mistborn. By explaining how the magic works and the strict rules that it follows, we open up the way to let the reader follow along and understand why things are happening. Once the heroes get to the end of the story and face up against the villain, the reader knows that the author isn’t going to suddenly whip out an all-purpose villain bashing spell that will lead to victory. Because of this, whatever the heroes do to overcome the threat at the end of the story, it’s a solution that will make sense within the confines of the world the reader has been shown.
These are both some fairly general looks at what can be a complex system, though.
If you take The Name of the Wind as an example, Rothfuss actually incorporates both types of magic systems into his story, sympathy and the fairy magic. He explained at a reading that while he wanted the system of sympathy to be the primary magic system in the story, he realized that there were certain things that he needed to happen that sympathy couldn’t account for, hence the balancing of the rigid and ruled sympathy with the more spontaneous and wild fairy magic.
At the end of the day, I think it’s important to emphasize the point that not all arbitrary systems are bad and not all ruled systems are good.
Something like The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay boasts a fairly arbitrary system of magic where the spells being cast do what the plot requires of them without any clear understanding of what the limits are. But it would take a pretty critical reader to claim that the system doesn’t work for the story.
More than anything else, it’s important to understand why your magic system works the way it does and to always be aware (and avoid!) the common pitfalls of each type of system.
22 Comments
Our world works with both systems, no?
There are many things that we can explain with set rules and systems, and then we have the completely mystical unexplained events in our lives. I mean, if you want to think of magic and science as the same things. Which I would be really offended by if anyone did, so I am not at all equating science to magic.
But we have basic laws of chemistry and physics which produce known outcomes for bajillions of events. And then we have the whole unvierse, with an existence that is hardly known or explained. Not that it is magical. It is just beyond what we currently know or understand…which is not magic.
I can’t remember where I ran into it but I remember a quote that states that to the untrained eye, any sufficiently advanced technology will seem indistinguishable from actual magic.
As an example, they brought up the fact that if you took a portable TV to the middle ages, they’d probably burn you for being a witch.
Our world…is complex, to be sure, haha. But I think that eventually there will be an understanding of how everything works (whether or not it’s a working Theory of Everything or the admittance of a God).
When it comes to fiction though, I would say that my favorite systems are often the ones that incorporate BOTH the rules and the arbitrary, much like our own world appears to us.
Taking the Name of the Wind as an example, it’s true that like our world, the fairy magic that SEEMS arbitrary MIGHT just be working off rules of the sympathy system that nobody in that world knows/understands yet…but from their perspective, it might as well be a portable tv ^^.
GREAT post! I have read and enjoyed random magic systems, but I definitely see the flaw. My Little Pony is another random one. (It’s sadly got random worldbuilding, too, but dammit if I don’t care and I like the show anyway)
However, I love the feeling of solidity behind a ruled magic system. The problem I find is that most authors who go through all that work really really want to SHOW IT ALL TO YOU. Mistborn, for example, which had so much jargon I could barely finish the first chapter.
Steven and I have been working for MONTHS on the magic system in the Zonduth books. We’re still not completely finished, but we’ve expanded, flattened, crushed, ironed, and soldered this thing to the point where it barely resembles its original concept. Nobody but rabid fans are ever going to find all the little fiddly bits out, because the characters and story are going to take center stage.
One of the best compliments you guys have given me on my writing was during the Dragon story, when you talked about how neatly I tucked my worldbuilding tidbits into the story itself. I will hold that in my heart forever. <3
There was quite a bit of jargon in Mistborn, wasn’t there? Haha.
To be honest, I don’t think I noticed it too much.
The only thing I’m not TOO fond of is the way there only seems to be one really solid way to show your magic system to the reader and that’s to introduce someone that doesn’t know how it works, and slowly work them into it. Like Vin and allomancy or Kvothe and sympathy.
Your dragon story was a bit odd in that it was ruled…but kind of arbitrary at once. There were set rules about the tattoos and how they were conferred by gods and could manifest as physically helpful things…but there’s no explanation for how they’re stored in his back, how they did the things they did.
But I think of that as fairly close to the Dresden files in terms of where it falls on the arbitrary/ruled systems of magic and you know that I love me some Dresden files ^^.
you consider Mistborn sci-fi? How so?
Mmmm that was a badly phrased sentence on my part.
I meant more “like many science fiction stories and also, like the Mistborn series.”
^^”
Something new that I have realized about my nearly 50 year old self…
I do not read fiction that critically. I just have never put much thought into whether the magic systems presented make sense. It is just magic. I just accept that.
Yesterday, Oldest Child was using a magical device that measures the electrical output of appliances and devices. You know, like a stud finder or Gieger counter, you wave it in front of an appliance, and it gives you a reading for how much electricity is being emitted.
The book shelves in the living room are a doorway to a magical portal!!! There is tons of electricity being emitted on either side of that wall, but no electrical lines run there.
I don’t need anyone to explain this to me. I am excited. Magic portal!! WHEEE!!
(This is how I read.)
I miss being able to read that way too =(
It’s related to a post that Tami put up a while ago about how the process of writing sort of ruins reading.
I never used to think too critically about the magic systems in my novels either until I started writing a little more seriously.
From that point on, everything I read had its own lessons and pitfalls to share.
The more critical look at the way magic systems came about when I started trying to create some of my own (and found them to be FAR, FAR harder than it may look haha).
I do wish I could turn that part of the brain off now and again though =)
Not for the first time in my life, someone asked me yesterday if I ever considered being a writer. My answer was thus:
I feel about writing like most kids feel about math. It is difficult and makes little sense, what with all the rules that no sane person could remember. Writing is scary and hazardous. I know this is true because:
Mathematicians are eccentric, smart people.
Writers are eccentric, smart people who are also alcoholics.
There is a reason for this.
And now I am even more confident in my position.
What? Not enjoy reading??
I have yet to meet the math or science person who finds it hard to enjoy math or science because they are doing math or science.
That is a weird world, you guys. Weird.
I am going to go do some math problems so I can feel smug.
Hmmm, I have a very concrete idea in my head regarding this but I’m having trouble finding words for it.
But I’ll try anyway ^^.
I think maths and the hard sciences are different from creating.
But in any case, I don’t think this is a case of not enjoying math or science because I’m DOING math or science.
That would be like saying I don’t enjoy writing because I’m writing.
This is more a case of like…not enjoying the *application* of something because you’re familiar with the process of creating that same something.
It’s like…watching movies, and enjoying them whether they have problems or not…but then you start taking filmmaking courses. You learn the nuts and bolts of how films are put together and then you watch a movie you once enjoyed, but you see flaw after flaw after flaw.
It’s the difference between enjoying the food you eat at a restaurant (oh this meal was fantastic, except for the steak, it was a little dry) and enjoying food as a judge on like Iron Chef or something (this meal combined the garlic notes with the subtle touch of beansprouts, unfortunately, the steak was cooked to three degrees warmer than it should have been, leaving it a touch dry against the maliard spice rub).
I think the more you involve yourself in the process of creating something, the harder it gets to overlook the flaws of the same creation when you read/eat/watch it.
I really want to emphasize the idea that it’s not all downsides.
When you get familiar with the creating process, sure, the flaws become more pronounced.
BUT.
When you run into someone that does something amazing…when you see an amazing movie that does something you never could have imagined (Memento) or eat something that completely blows your mind (my aunt’s red wine marinated steak) or read a novel that makes you think you’ll never EVER write on that level in your life (Name of the Wind/Fionavar Tapestry/Snow Crash)…
Man, I’ll tell you that it’s one of the most amazing feelings in the world.
The realization that even if *I* might not be able to do it, that it CAN be done is like the sun rising in the middle of the night. It’s like a soak in a hot tub at the end of a grueling day of work. It’s like having the love of your heart bringing you a hot mug of tea on a cold winter’s day.
And it’s the aspiration that one day…you can do the same =)
That got long… haha.
*sorry, I am in a flippant mood today, so try not to take me seriously at all*
Pffft. Math and science are not creative processes. *rolling my eyes*
Clearly, you are an alocholic.
Okay, I get your point and I liked the clarification of “This is more a case of like…not enjoying the *application* of something because you’re familiar with the process of creating that same something.” Nicely conveyed.
But…um…science and math are creative processes. Differently than writing and story-telling are a creative process, but creativity, imagination and implausible thinking are a part of math and science.
And you totally ruined my smug feeling, there. Even though I am still right, because nobody can name an alcoholic scientist, but everyone can name an alcoholic writer…or two.
*laughing at the absurdity of making absolute statements like this and still feeling smug*
*laughs
You know, Anne, I will contend that as a mother of three, you have the right to feel as smug as you please ^^.
I’ll also give you that science and math are also creative processes…but I think that creativity in those fields tend to kick in at a higher point.
BUT, that may well be because I have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to math and sciences lol.
As for the alcoholic scientist vs alcoholic writers…well, I would contend it’s because us alcoholic writers tend to fly a little closer to the sun.
Looks good when it works but we have a much higher burnout rate ^.~
Tamora Pierce also uses both systems of magic though she refers to Academic and Wild Magic. (Then of course there are the gods).
And I think that’s the system that I prefer. For two reasons. One “arbitrary” to the reader doesn’t always mean “arbitrary” to the author. I can believe so in Harry Potter’s case, the glasses being the best example. However, J.R.R. Tolkien was so thorough with his World Building I can’t believe he didn’t have some idea behind his magic, he just may not have seen any reason to share it with the reader. However, I’d have to go ask my Tolkien-nut friends.
(2) However, the best thing about a two-part magic system to me is that it shows that while people are studying it and learning about it, there is still more to study and learn. If Everything is constrained by rules and nothing spontaneous ever happens then it’s implied that the entire system is understood. I don’t like that. I like having room to grow and learn.
Fantastic example and comment, and I agree! I do like there to be some magic in my magic. ^_^
Hmmmm.
A problem I have with that is that I believe you can’t leave things out of the text and point to it as an answer when someone questions your world.
Opinion on this differs of course, and I’m by no means an authority ^^”.
But just from personal opinion, I feel that if you don’t explain how something works in the text, you might as well be leaving it blank.
This doesn’t mean that just because you don’t explain it in the text, it HAS to be arbitrary.
Tami’s Choose is a good example of this, I think. At no point does she ever come out and fully explain how cogsmithing or alchemy works in her world, there’s a strong sense of structure to the system. While I couldn’t sit down and explain how it works, if you asked me something that the system COULDN’T do (can you cogsmith an enchanted wand that transforms people to kittens?), I would be pretty sure that the answer would be no.
If we go back to the Tolkien example, the system isn’t explained in the text (I’ve only read The Hobbit and LotR), and the magic is varied and diverse enough that I can’t be sure of what it can or can’t do. When an elf can dip her sword into a river and call a tidal wave, wizards can use their staves to throw each other around a room or emit huge beacons of light, or there exists a magic ring that turns the user invisible but is also linked to a giant fiery eye…I mean, looking at that system, if you were to ask me, “is there a spell that can make people fly?”, my answer to that would have to be, “I don’t know…maybe?”
Still, this is very much just my views on the topic ^^”. I happen to think that if it doesn’t exist in the text, you can’t refer to it as proof in an argument (Dumbledore is gay? What?) but it’s perfectly fine to view any authorial reference as canon as well!
To the second point, I think that the best systems I’ve encountered are also the ones that have rules coupled with an element of the unknown =).
Ok, Choose cogsmithing. I don’t consider that magic! Cogsmithing to me is just tiny tiny engineering using springs and potential energy and lots of skill and creativity. Now, when talking about Bones, who is a giant cogsmithing construct, there is something EXTRA going on there, which adds an element of magic. But (SPOILER) the lsat might snuff box that poofed super spice everywhere? I considered that straight up science in physics.
TAMIJEAN, I DEMAND YOU COMMENT ON THIS THREAD.
You are both potentially right. There IS magic there. The snuff box could have been created using pure science (it required no magic shards or anything) BUT it would have been impossible for them to time it perfectly AND make it fly with the little rockets in the time alotted without some kind of magic.
In my mind, Cogsmithing ranges from pure science and engineering to something akin to pure magic (like when (SPOILER) Henry’s soul was transferred)
Choose remains relevant in daily life! *happydance*
I call anything that we can’t do in our daily lives the magic system.
So Star Trek to me is technically the ‘magic system’ of that universe too =)
But cogsmithing has a special place in my heart <3
Luffluff. Mine, too!
I will agree with you that that if it is not written any where that it cannot be considered an authority. And certainly while an author is alive (at least me) I’m certainly not going to release Everything I know about a particular universe of my creation. I’m going to keep the frayed edges to myself until I turn them into the whole cloth of finished stories and then release them, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know where I’m going. So I still think that my point is valid.
As for Tolkien, no it isn’t explained in H&LoTR, that’s why I referred to my Tolkien-nut friends, who have read ALL of the rest of it. I just happened to know that he was a great world builder and something like magic is just too huge to leave to chance. You’re right it’s not explained in H&LotR, but he does talk about it a little bit more in some of his other works. The Tolkien-nuts I talked to said their is a system, but I had to run so we couldn’t get into it.
I would put forth that Arbitrary vs. Structured is a two dimensional continuum, rather than an either/or proposition. One axis of the reader’s view, and one axis of the author’s knowledge.
I loved this bit: “I’m going to keep the frayed edges to myself until I turn them into the whole cloth of finished stories and then release them.”
And I agree wholeheartedly! It’s probably just as boring to be told everything as it is to be told nothing ^^.
I agree with your last point as well haha. Thing is that it’s usually never as cut and dry as just arbitrary or ruled systems. A lot of magic systems bleed into one or the other and it falls to the reader to decide how they want to interpret it, which is often the best way to handle it.
Get the reader involved in the process and it makes for a much more engaging story, I think =)
That I will completely agree with. The reader should be involved in the process.