"Modern" magic: wizards or superheroes?

[Arcanist]

Hi folks.

I began reading fantasy long time ago and was always interested in magic systems. In the last few years however I often felt that the magic-users (and I dont use sorcerer/wizard intentionally) of some series have rather special abilities instead of „traditional” magic. In some aspects they are like superheroes in the comics. I dont say its a new trend (perhaps it is) in epic fantasy, but I have some examples. Therefore I developed the following theory: 

 

Magic-users are in some fantasy novels like superheroes/villains because:
 

- They have a limited number of powers

In comics most of the heroes have a limited number of powers. You can list 4-5 abilities, usually not more. And they are bound together by a common "aspect". Magneto manipulates the electromagnetic spectrum/magnetism, and Peter Parker can do what spiders can do.
You can find the same trend in case of some magic-users. Allomancers have also a limited number of abilities based on metals, even in case of mistborns - one per metal. The drafters by Brent Weeks manipulate in his Lightbringer series light/colors and the rainlords of Glenda Larke water .

The trick is, the writers try to use the few abilities of their characters in a creative way (Sandersons third law)

Can you say the same about Elric of Melniboné or Gandalf or Elminster? I dont think so. Their magic consists of several very different spells without any common aspect. Their power is more versatile...unpredictable.

And here comes premiss No. 2.

 

- Their powers are predictable

As a descendant of the first premiss, the magic-users powers are predictable. The readers know more-or-less, what the characters can do with their powers, can make a list with their abilities and therefore the writers can use the magic to solve conflicts (Hard magic based on Sandersons first law).

What about the magic of the wizards of Earthsea by LeGuin? Or of Peter S Beagle or of Patricia McKillip? Well, their powers are not predictable bacause the writers base on the unpredictability of magic, on the mystical atmosphere and the readers have no clue what the wizards can do. (yeah its soft magic).

 

- Their power bases on their talents/genetics not (only) on learning.

In case of most superheroes the abilities are in the blood. Several superheroes (mutants by marvel) born with that, and another are changed by an accident (think on Spider Man).
Allomancers by Brandon have the power in their blood as well (bases on genetics), even the folks in Elantris needs to have a transformation in their life to use the symbol-magic of the planet. The same is true for the drafters of Brent Weeks, the powder-mages of McClennan. Rainlords of Larke etc.
And how can they use the power? They learn magic from a master (Kelsier) or in a school  (the Chromeria). But first comes the power and only after that the school which is often only needed to learn how to use the instinctive power safe (instead of learn the power from the beginning). Think on Xavier's School for gifted youngsters.
 

The traditional wizard have also talents: they are very talented in magic, but without the education, the secret formulas, cantrips, symbols they can do in many cases nothing. I think, there are a lot of fantasy worlds (worlds of Moorcock or jack Vance) where you can learn magic if you have an appropriate master. You wont be the most talented archwizard but you can learn some tricks. Most "modern" magic systems however bases their system on talents/genetic and even with the most talented master of the world you cant learn a single spell if you are not a magic-user by birth - you are genetically incapable to use magic. 

However even "classic" fantasy uses both types of magic users. Most common example: DnD. Sorcerers use instinctive magic and wizards academic magic.
 

- They have abilities rather than spells

As a consequence of the third premiss, the magic-users of some authors have magical abilities instead of spells. They activate the magic with their mind, use them at-will and need only to practice instead of academic learning. They use magic as a tool, are not researchers themselfes and dont have to master any secret language or understand complex obscure theories.

Ok, most authors dont want to have Superman around, so they develop some limitations - their heroes need to have some resources: metal (Sanderson), (storm)light (Sanderson, Weeks), gunpowder (McClennan), shadows, something...And here comes a difference: this resource-based-ability-setting is different from the typical comic-hero-setting.

Traditional wizards however need more than practice. They need books, secret formulas in ancient languages, symbols, the true names of things (think on Le Guin, Pat Rothfuss, Jack Vance) or even magical components or magic rod etc. And the magic is often activated by movements, by spoken spells not only by thoughts.
 

- They are often phisically strong/fast

A stereotypical wizard is weak and intelligent, a very stereotipical fighter is strong and/or fast and/or intelligent. But the roles are clear and although magic controls reality in a lot of ways, it usually dont make the wizard stronger. Well Elric is made nearly invincible by the sword Stormbringer but this is rather the exemption.

There are some authors however (and these are truly the minority even nowadays) whose heroes are strong/fast and in addition they can do a lot of funny things with their powers without bad, black swords. Szeth, Kaladin or the mistborns of Sanderson, the powder mages of McClennan, the wetboy of Brent Weeks are typical examples. On the contrary of Elric these magic-users are one of their kind, users of a magic system not bearer of unique artifacts.

A middle-field is Cain by Jon Sprunk: he is a trained assassin and magic is only an auxiliary tool. So he is a magic user and a blademaster as well.

 

 

This trend described above has its merits. I can remember reading Spider man as a teenager and it "felt" good to be strong, to move between skyscrapers on a web. These magic systems I mentioned bases on the same experience: its cool being strong and can be sympathetic for readers who prefer fighters and for those who prefer magicians.

 

However, I dont say that this theory of mine would be perfect. Even in case of authors I mentioned you can find direct the opposite. The people of Elantris have magical abilities but without the symbols they cant cast spells, so they are more „classical” wizards than a misting for example. The one thing I wanted was to show you a trend in modern epic fantasy.

I would be glad if you would agree or disagree me. Please discuss with me and in case of agreeing feel free to bring your own examples. 

 

Thank you.
(P.S. Sorry for the language-mistakes, I am not a native speaker)

[king of nowhere]

that's just cause we're using hard magic instead of soft magic. IF you want hard magic, i.e. magic the reader can understand, you have to have a limited number of effects. as a result, the "wizard" cannot just stay back and cast spells, he has to rely on a combo of his powers + physical abilities, and here you have mistborns, windrunners, etc. Or, you need a 14-book epic to get the readers used enough at how the magic works.

I prefer it that way. I never liked wizards and elves, and I actually got into fantasy mostly for the worldbuilding. Therefore I prefer by far a hard magic system that fits into the world, rather than some vague magic that will drive the plot in a sort of deus ex machina way

[Argent]

On the understanding of hard vs soft magic, it depends. Jim Butcher's wizards do magic by imagining a thing and making said thing real by pouring magic energy into it with their will. You could argue that this is soft magic (and in some ways it is), but it has hard rules and has to obey physics.

+1 for Elminster.

[Swimmingly]

On the understanding of hard vs soft magic, it depends. Jim Butcher's wizards do magic by imagining a thing and making said thing real by pouring magic energy into it with their will. You could argue that this is soft magic (and in some ways it is), but it has hard rules and has to obey physics.

+1 for Elminster.

Especially since Harry tends to specialise, and a lot of the magic in that world - werewolfs, vampires, etc. - is very constrained as well.

[PorridgeBrick]

I'd say Butcher's magic is definitely soft magic, but it's well enough written and used commonly enough to give the illusion of a hard magic system. His Codex Alera is pretty hard magic though iirc.

[Swimmingly]

I'd say Butcher's magic is definitely soft magic, but it's well enough written and used commonly enough to give the illusion of a hard magic system. His Codex Alera is pretty hard magic though iirc.

Not entirely, though. There's a lot of variability in terms of what the furies can actually do.

[Argent]

Soft magic looking like hard magic is still hard in my book, just not as something like Allomancy.

[Swimmingly]

When the writer uses magic as just another tool used by the characters, it's harder.

When the magic is the driving force behind the plot, it's softer.

[Tamzin Ashevai]

Seriously, are we debating authors or ideas?  It seems to me that this discussion began as discourse between differing premises, not individuals.  However, I wonder now just what this debate is really about!

Edited March 7, 2014 by Tamzin Ashevai

[Cracknut]

Superabilities = Magic. Except one is used in sci-fi and another in fantasy. If you think about it, there's no difference at all. I believe it all just comes down to explanation of how it works and why. If its explained with spiritual stuff or not explained at all then its magic, if it all started with scientifically mutated spider biting main hero then its an ability. As OP stated, there are some similarities in the way they affect story and Sanderson's Laws of Magic actually work same way in superhero stories. You simply can't have main character with magic/ability without those limitations. Without limitations there would be no challenge. It's obvious why a book/comics like that wouldn't work.

[Topomouse]

I can agree that they are basically the same thing, but IMHO the different impostation, frame of mind, by which are justified can make a lot of difference. Most of Sanderson magic systems tens to lean toward the "superpower archetype"(Allomancy in particular could fit pretty well in a superhero comic) but somehow I still think they fall in the "magic archetype". Maybe it's just bias on my part since the book are categorized as fantasy and not sci-fi and my opinion will change in the last Mistborn trilogy ut I don't think so.

 

To answer the OP: You are probably right, I think nowadays most books tend toward harder magic compared to Tolkiens and the like, this leads to a trend toward more "superpower archetype" magic system, but there are counter-exemple like the Black Magician and Age of the Five series by Trdu Canavan. In both series the magic is hard, but the magic users are very wizard-like.

Also, I don't think it's very well known, but the two Demon Trilogies by R.A. Salvatore(the author of the Drizz books) feature very limited magic that could fit the "superhero archetype".

[Mistdork]

Tolkien's magic though is very...wild, mystical, untamed. Like that you find in myths and legends, it's really the sign of the era he was writing in and his background that led to it too. Magic's not use that solve that many problems, in fact, it usually creates more problems than it solves and most of the time, people without magic are fighting against evil that has a bit too much of it...

I would call this recent movement towards a harder, more scientific magic system the hardening of magic in general. The OP is right in that regard. It's not necessarily bad or good, but it's probably somewhat linked to how science influences our society in general. We expect more scientific fantasy as the result of a society that seems to have less mystery (in a way), it's just...well, it fits with historical trends...*shrugs*

[Arcanist]

First of all, thanks for the answers

 

that's just cause we're using hard magic instead of soft magic. IF you want hard magic, i.e. magic the reader can understand, you have to have a limited number of effects. as a result, the "wizard" cannot just stay back and cast spells, he has to rely on a combo of his powers + physical abilities, and here you have mistborns, windrunners, etc. Or, you need a 14-book epic to get the readers used enough at how the magic works.

 

 

I partly agree partly disagree with you. I like your idea "limited powers are easier to understand" but I dont think that the only way would be superpower-abilities. Its one way.

If you simply want to have some kind of hard magic, think on some magic systems of role-playing games, such as Earthdawn. You can have a complex theory of magic, even clear defined rules AND you can have spells and traditional wizards as well. You have rules and limitations and they can be applied in case of hundreds of spells you not even know. So the reader can understand the basics in one book (no need for a 14-epic series , he does not need to know all the spells.

 

But you are right, a world with limited magical abilities is in some way easier to understand.

 

Soft magic looking like hard magic is still hard in my book, just not as something like Allomancy.

 

I think the point is: how the readery realize magic. In Perdido Street Station by Miéville an entire society is based on magic some way. There is a kind of magical industrial revolution with wizards using theumaturgic engines etc. So the magic has rules unless the wizards could not have used it for building complex devices. But the reader does not know the rules, everything is mystical.
So its hard magic in-world, but soft magic as literary tool. 

Whats more: I think if Brandon had chosen to explain Surgebinding/Soulcasting in WoK it would be a typical hard magic stuff. However we still not understand it, and thatswhy it has a kind of soft magic feeling - a lot of things are mystical.

 

When the writer uses magic as just another tool used by the characters, it's harder.
When the magic is the driving force behind the plot, it's softer.

 

For me hard magic is a tool or a kind of science. Hard magic is positivism - you can understand the world, you can understand magic. And a tool for the author concerning solving conflicts

Soft magic is atmosphere, a tool for the author to create a world full of mystical wonder. And current -even dangerous - experimenting with spells you cannot understand

 

 

Superabilities = Magic. Except one is used in sci-fi and another in fantasy. If you think about it, there's no difference at all. I believe it all just comes down to explanation of how it works and why. If its explained with spiritual stuff or not explained at all then its magic, if it all started with scientifically mutated spider biting main hero then its an ability. As OP stated, there are some similarities in the way they affect story and Sanderson's Laws of Magic actually work same way in superhero stories. You simply can't have main character with magic/ability without those limitations. Without limitations there would be no challenge. It's obvious why a book/comics like that wouldn't work.

 

I disagree. Partly. Traditional magic is not ability-like, is more or less based on spells. Superabilities are...well abilities you can use at will, that dont require specific knowledge only training.

 

I think you can have magic that "ts explained with spiritual stuff" and is ability-like in the same time. Think on Soulcasting. In WoR as Shallan/Jasnah is experimenting in Shadesmar, I had the feeling I am in a world of platonic ideas where all terms are glassbeads. Stick, a ship, etc. Surgebinding is more or less ability like for me, however, Brandon created a mystical background with spren and Shadesmar.

 

Tolkien's magic though is very...wild, mystical, untamed. Like that you find in myths and legends, it's really the sign of the era he was writing in and his background that led to it too. Magic's not use that solve that many problems, in fact, it usually creates more problems than it solves and most of the time, people without magic are fighting against evil that has a bit too much of it... I would call this recent movement towards a harder, more scientific magic system the hardening of magic in general. The OP is right in that regard. It's not necessarily bad or good, but it's probably somewhat linked to how science influences our society in general. We expect more scientific fantasy as the result of a society that seems to have less mystery (in a way), it's just...well, it fits with historical trends...*shrugs*

 

Hm..interesting idea. Im not a sociologist to understand literary trends as consequences of sociological trends...but as far as I know fantasy became popular as a kind of escapism-tool. To go away from reality, where things are somehow more simple (more black and white), and where is more "magic" than in our world.
 

[Cracknut]

Yeah but maybe it's because 'old magic' was never ever explained. Magician just had to read books, wave his wand, shout out some words in made up language and thunder and flames were all over the place. Maybe he entered Shadesmar and made air believe it was thunder and flames, stuff he was shouting in physical realm was just dismembered and mixed up version of his cognitive dialogue with air and wand/staff were just used for looks. And there you have, old magic, explained like ability. Take away those explanation's from Soulcasting and have people transforming stuff into flames and you'll get classical magicians.

[Mistdork]

 

Hm..interesting idea. Im not a sociologist to understand literary trends as consequences of sociological trends...but as far as I know fantasy became popular as a kind of escapism-tool. To go away from reality, where things are somehow more simple (more black and white), and where is more "magic" than in our world.

Not that I disagree fully be we can argue that the earliest kind of fantasy is religious (I'm not calling all regilion fantasy just certain myths are more fantastic than others). Fantasy is a work of culture, even our escapism type says something about where our culture is... Like perhaps because if postmodernism, our escapism/fantasy has become more hard because our world seems somehow more whimsy. We want worlds that have more defined rules. My real point is though that historical developments in high/epic/escapist literature don't develop in a bubble. They're still a part of history and why things are the way they are in a genre is because of trends... Anyway, I now feel like ultimate dork! Yes. *sigh*

[Surgebound Rainspren]

on the contrary to some of these responses I always liked books that had a magic system that I couldn't relate to. because in essence this is what magic is. people read and write about magic to escape from the reality that there is no easier way to do or accomplish something. have you noticed that there is really ever or even never a magic system that makes a task harder to accomplish. maybe the magic its self is hard to control but what it is being used for becomes easier. since the magic written about in books doesn't exist in real life the physics behind it can't be tested. sure you can make theories to why the magic acts the way it does but nothing can be validated. I always enjoyed how in Brandon Sanderson's novels the science and LORE behind the actions of the world he created was tight and well thought out. but the reason of magic is to make you wonder why it happens and how it does so.           

[Two McMillion]

This whole discussion is one thing I found really interesting about the Powder Mage trilogy. In an era where we're seeing a transition from softer magics to harder ones in fantasy, one of the main conflicts of that series is the one between the older breed of mages who wield a soft magic (the Privileged) and the powder mages who are something like Mistborn. It's definitely a fascinating subtext to the series.

 

I've found that what I really enjoy in my magic systems in fiction is the ability of characters to be *creative*. That is, I very much enjoy seeing existing powers used in new and interesting ways. This was one of the reasons I enjoyed Mistborn so much, I think. Obviously, this lends itself very much to harder systems of magic, but it doesn't necessarily exclude the softer ones- the Dresden Files is a great example of a softer system which still lends itself to creative uses. The Dresden Files magic system is a pretty interesting case study in a lot of ways, actually, since it manages to be both hard and soft at the same time. Harry Potter is similar, but leans more towards the softer side whereas Dresden seems to lean more towards the hard. Wheel of Time is another one I can think of in this middle ground. Medium hardness systems are tough to write but can be pretty spectacular when they work out.

[Two McMillion]

on the contrary to some of these responses I always liked books that had a magic system that I couldn't relate to. because in essence this is what magic is. people read and write about magic to escape from the reality that there is no easier way to do or accomplish something. have you noticed that there is really ever or even never a magic system that makes a task harder to accomplish. maybe the magic its self is hard to control but what it is being used for becomes easier. since the magic written about in books doesn't exist in real life the physics behind it can't be tested. sure you can make theories to why the magic acts the way it does but nothing can be validated. I always enjoyed how in Brandon Sanderson's novels the science and LORE behind the actions of the world he created was tight and well thought out. but the reason of magic is to make you wonder why it happens and how it does so.           

 

 

It seems to me that the key with softer magic systems is to use them to create problems, not solve them. Narnia might be a good example here- magic is whimsical and mystifying, but it invariably makes things harder for the heroes, not easier.