Suggested Writing Excuses topic...

[Silk]

Magic that's just magic? Read Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic duology.

[Renoard]

Sounds interesting, But I would still like to hear a formal discussion on the issues.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Hasn't it already been discussed in season 1 episode 14? I seem to remember them talking about systems that have a lot of rules as well as ones that don't and it's just magic.

Basically I'm not a fan of "just magic" because it means the author can cheat and do anything he wants—there's no dramatic tension and it's not very interesting to read.

[Renoard]

I don't know if it has been discussed, I'm way too new to WE and TWG in general.

But you have a point.  I'm not talking about the author using magical thinking, just his characters.   Yeah there have to be limitations.  But having an entire science that is taught to the reader and has to hang together seems excessive.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

How developed your magic system needs to be to make good fiction depends largely on how much your main characters will be using it to solve problems. If they're not going to use the magic much at all, it doesn't need to be developed much at all. But if they're going to be using it extensively, it should make as much sense to the reader as it does to the characters, or near enough sense that when the characters use it to solve a problem the reader's disbelief is still suspended.

A lot of things go back to the "surprising, yet inevitable" goal of writing. If things are explained too much, the surprise is gone and the reader won't be excited by your climax. If things are explained too little, everything's a surprise and the reader won't know where the heck you got your climax resolution from.

[Silk]

Here's a link to the episode Ookla mentioned.

Most of the time in this episode, if I recall correctly, is spent on rule-based magic systems, but they do mention more "magical" magic systems.

I think the crux of their discussion came down to Sanderson's first law: The more you use magic to fix problems, the more the reader has to know about how the magic works.

(Yes, I've inverted it. Shush; it fits my purposes for this post. )

So in a book like Lord of the Rings, which our podcasters cited, we don't know how the magic works, and it doesn't matter, because it's not used to solve problems. (The one time Gandalf steps in to use magic and take down the Balrog, he croaks.) Having a magic system that is "just magic" isn't an automatic tension killer; if the author doesn't use it as a plot doctor, it's not a problem.

[Renoard]

I like the term "magic bullet" but that is my assertion as well.

It seems to me if you avoid magic bullets and also don't make the magic practitioner the pov or focus point for limited om. then you could make a more magical magic.  The author could avoid issues by constructing rules, but never explicitly citing them.  Personally I think killing Gandalf takes the form of a magic bullet, because it makes it easier to push the fellowship out into the forest without any real protection.  This is exacerbated by bringing him back as "the white".  So, in my opinion you can end up with magic bullets by suppressing magic as easily as encouraging it.  In fact Gandalf's lack of magical support makes it harder to accept Sauron and Saruman as real threats.

[PW]

I would love to see a podcast on short story forms.