Reading Motivations

[Kynedath]

Yesterday, myself and two of my friends had an argument over whether the new star wars movie was amazing, good, or disappointing. While trying to find their point of view, I remembered why our opinions were so different. We all watch movies and read books for different reasons.

 

One of my friends reads and watches movies for the interpersonal relationships. For her, the world is what gives the people's interactions context, and the story is what they have to go through together/apart.

 

My other friend reads and watches movies for the plot. The relationships provide the motives for their actions and the world limits/expands the possibilities of what the characters can do.

 

I read and watch movies for the worlds and the systems. I think that the plot is a way of conveying a world to the reader. Relationships are what drive the plot, and don't affect the world directly, therefore I tend to ignore them and not care about them.

Take Elantris for example (There shouldn't be too many spoilers as I am only a quarter of the way through the book, but I'll put up a spoiler anyways. All I am doing is just saying what the characters are describing).

 

I enjoy Raoden's part in the book the most, as it allows me to discover the magic system and the way of life in Elantris. Hrathen's sections are showing me the political and religious beliefs of most of the world. Sarene's part shows the political environment of Arelon and Kae.

 

 

I am sure that there are more motivations out there then the ones I just listed, but these are the three I discovered, and I think that they are a good baseline.

 

I just want to ask the question, why do you guys read? Why do you read Sanderson's books, or even at all?

[Clockwork he/him]

I read for the systems of magic quite a bit, as well as the creatures, but the characters are what I think make a book truly good. No matter how good the magic and world are, if the characters are bad, then I simply cannot continue reading. The plot is probably second, then the world and systems. even with bad systems and such, good characters and a well-thought out plot makes good fantasy.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

There are many reasons why I read fiction, but I think the primary one is to see how an author twists old tropes. I use the word broadly; a trope can be anything from a plot to a character type to a relationship to a variety of magic to a world. And sometimes, the fun in reading for me comes from seeing which tropes are twisted and which are used straight.

Take Brandon Sanderson as an example everyone here knows. He's fond of inverting and deconstructing fantasy worldbulding tropes--the evil empire, the thieves' guild, the brewing war, the arranged marriage, the end of the world. All of these twists add a unique flavor to the world, further aided by the way he plays with character tropes; I'm thinking specifically of how he made the tough street urchin female and the bookish heir male in Mistborn. When he plays other tropes like the lecherous, abusive father straight, the twisted tropes keep them from feeling like stock characters. Combine these with a nicely surprising plot, and you have a book that keeps you on your toes well into the night.

On the other hand, a book's plot can be well-tread with known archetypes and a world that has been done many times before and still be surprising and enjoyable. I'd count the Potterverse as one such world. The main character is the Chosen One, hunted and hated by the Dark Lord, loved by nearly everyone except those who are sympathetic to the Dark Lord on some level. He is aided by a bumbling sidekick and a clever girl, grows in skill, and takes down the Dark Lord in a way that doesn't force him to kill and is cheered by everyone present.

And yet, the series doesn't feel like a parade of cliches. Rowling gave her characters some depth and took time to explore the psychological effects of their adventures, making her world ever more complex as she went. Although anyone who frequents the Random Stuff threads knows I quibble with her philosophy, having an underlying philosophy to quibble with works wonders for what could have been a tired retreading of a familiar story.

Ultimately, I think that is what makes or breaks a story for me. It's why the earlier Percy Jackson books worked while later ones seemed tired to me: Despite the fresh look at classical mythology, there were too many tropes played straight. It worked for a while, but every formula needs tweaking before people get tired of the recipe.

[Moonskin she/her]

I read for the same reason that I watch movies and tv shows and play rpg games : because I enjoy a good story

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I read because I enjoy it as an art form. So I don't always read for story... in fact, nowadays, I almost never do. Some of my favorite books consist of the "plot" just kinda dragging its feet, instead I love them because of how the prose is constructed, how time can be slowed down during intense fast moments or how a man's cracking knees are as important to his character as his mood or motivations... perhaps even more so!

 

I read Brandon because he's enjoyable. He's a fun break from other heavier reads, but he also learns from the successes and mistakes of other fantasy authors. His has enough crafting to calm my more pretentious side when I read it... much like a hint of salt on a Ritz cracker. He's also been very consistent, which is something to treasure in your genre writers.

 

I'm also different from most people on this site (it seems) in that I think magic should have less rules, not more... not even a system. To me, the more rules you have, the more extant your system, the less you end up with magic and the more you end up with fictional physics. I find a good piece of magical realism like, say, The Satanic Verses to have more magic in it then the entirety of Brandon's works.

 

That's not to say I hate Brandon's systems, as I've said he uses the rules to enhance or build whatever story he's telling... often times, it also helps with action scenes. I just prefer my magic to be magic

[Seonid he/him]

I'm also different from most people on this site (it seems) in that I think magic should have less rules, not more... not even a system. To me, the more rules you have, the more extant your system, the less you end up with magic and the more you end up with fictional physics. I find a good piece of magical realism like, say, The Satanic Verses to have more magic in it then the entirety of Brandon's works.

 

That's not to say I hate Brandon's systems, as I've said he uses the rules to enhance or build whatever story he's telling... often times, it also helps with action scenes. I just prefer my magic to be magic

 

So what you are saying is that you prefer "soft" magic over "hard" magic? (To use classifications from the Sanderson's Laws essays). I can understand that. I think each has its place. But I think that the "softer" the magic (that is, the less rules/restrictions it has), the less able it is to provide anything useful to the plot of the story. Taken to the farthest extent possible, extremely soft magic becomes the equivalent of Deus Ex Machina.

 

On the other hand, I agree that the more rules you explicitly label a magic system with, the more it comes to resemble an expanded physics. (Of course, this is what I am looking for in my reading, since I strongly believe that all that exists, including God/angels/supernatural beings of any kind, work within those laws. So the magic I am most interested in is the magic that finds itself expressed withing the laws of physics.) But taken too far, it does stop feeling like magic, and I do enjoy worlds where magic is mysterious and not well understood - worlds where it is soft.

 

For me, then, the best compromise between the two (assuming that one or the other end of the spectrum is not clearly more beneficial to the setting) is where the author knows all of the rules that magic follows - what can and cannot be done, and how things interact, but where the characters do not. To them, magic is mysterious (even though it does, in reality, follow well-defined rules) because they do not understand it well, perhaps are even not capable of understanding it well. So the magic is hard - in that it actually meshes with physics as we understand it, and where it doesn't, it bends it in ways that are consistent with the observations we have currently made. But the universe/setting is soft - the magic feels mysterious to the participants, and the rules/system don't come to the forefront of the story.

 

Your mileage may vary.

[DreamEternal]

I myself prefer histories with magic of variable hardness. The protagonists use magic that follows rules, but those rules are incomplete and can't explain some minor details, and some phenomenons and entities can not be explained by the know laws of magic at all, and may or may not be understood one day.

Truth to be told, while I do enjoy theorizing on the boards I don't like the way Brandon writes magic systems as much as his in depth worldbuilding in other areas indirectly linked to them, like the history of his worlds. What do I like the most in his books then?

The tones and themes, that manage to be optimistic without shying away from showing suffering and pain. There is hope, there is light, but it demands a sacrifice.

And while he uses clear cut divisions between heros and villains more often than I would like, his characters are interesting and varied and I like characters with strong senses of morality, especially in this time when "flawed" and "realistic" seem to mean "selfish" and "amoral" to so many readers and authors.

As for what drives me to read, I don't know for sure. Maybe I feel I belong more to the worlds of dreams than the one of reality.

[+Slowswift he/him]

I don't know if there's an exact word to describe it. Wonder, maybe? Wanderlust? I don't know if I want to use "escapism", though upon further reflection that may be part of it.

 

I read because of the world that the author built. All of it, really; the magic and the setting especially. It's why I liked Eragon: the story wasn't original and his prose was far from the best, but I enjoyed the setting and the magic (and dragons!), and so I enjoyed the series.

 

It's why I like the Star Wars prequel trilogy: all sorts of planets and the Force and lightsabers and spaceships. That sort of thing just excites me. Sure, Jar Jar is annoying (among other things), but for me, all the cool technology overrides that.