|
But I'm not mad.  people are just being ridiculous. It's a stylistic preference.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
There's always the Sam Sykes option of "Magic totally fucks up the guy casting it if he overdoes it, down to the point where he's literally pissing fire"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Bolverkur posted:This post. I love it. Please tell me some of this was ripped from actual fiction. If not then tell me more. I feel the Long Price Quartet is really good at examining the large-scale and long-term impacts of magic used as technology. One of the major characters in the first book uses their vast magical power to dominate the global cotton market. It's also a really good series in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:But I'm not mad. It's not, though, the Sanderson passages being quoted in this thread are just absolutely dreadful writing. This is not a matter of subjective style, it's a matter of one approach being really tricky to execute without falling down in a clattering heap of embarrassingly pubescent exposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's not, though, the Sanderson passages being quoted in this thread are just absolutely dreadful writing. This is not a matter of subjective style, it's a matter of one approach being really tricky to execute without falling down in a clattering heap of embarrassingly pubescent exposition. I disagree. The passage is a little awkwadly phrased, especially out of the flow of the narrative, but its not the worst writing ever. There's no such thing as an objectively better preference so you sound kind of silly stating that this is objectively worse somehow. In the end, I'm not even really trying to defend Sanderson, just saying that I enjoy his style of magic despite the pratfalls that come along with it to 'magic is literally always deus ex machina that will work or fail at the author's whim because x' style writing. Does an overexplained style lend itself to some dorky looking writing? Sure, I'll admit that can happen, and even is the tendency. Does that make it objectively worse? Almost certainly not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's not, though, the Sanderson passages being quoted in this thread are just absolutely dreadful writing. This is not a matter of subjective style, it's a matter of one approach being really tricky to execute without falling down in a clattering heap of embarrassingly pubescent exposition. Yeah but that's just, like, your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:I disagree. The passage is a little awkwadly phrased, especially out of the flow of the narrative, but its not the worst writing ever. Nobody's saying it's the worst writing ever, but it is pretty drat bad writing. I usually like Sanderson's writing well enough and those were some painful failures of expository writing and viewpoint maintenance. Like on the technical level they were some really clumsy bits of writing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Yeah but that's just, like, your opinion, man. See, you're getting it! neongrey posted:Nobody's saying it's the worst writing ever, but it is pretty drat bad writing. I usually like Sanderson's writing well enough and those were some painful failures of expository writing and viewpoint maintenance. Like on the technical level they were some really clumsy bits of writing. Right, I even admitted that. I just don't understand why it's been a multipage derail. I mean yeah, goons, hilarious trolling, whatever. But it sort of came out of nowhere, and I still prefer a logically sound magic system, despite the cost of a bit of awkward writing here and there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
It's not even an inherent cost - you're creating a false dichotomy. You can write a mechanistic magic system and you can write it well. But most writers who attempt it (like Sanderson) don't know how, because they are Objectively Not Very Good on the technical level. And yeah, I do think there is such a thing as Objectively Bad writing. Writing is a craft as well as an art, and while of course I can only invoke my own experience, I think it's a general case with expert skills that the difference between good and bad performance becomes more and more obvious as you yourself become a better reader or writer. e: I will put it more plainly: if you think that those Sanderson passages are good writing, you are a bad reader.  This is not a universal condemnation of all mechanistic magic systems, just of those passages on a prose level.
General Battuta fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:See, you're getting it! Obviously you're not a golfer
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's not even an inherent cost - you're creating a false dichotomy. You can write a mechanistic magic system and you can write it well. But most writers who attempt it (like Sanderson) don't know how, because they are Objectively Not Very Good on the technical level. Hell, three words can explain the problem with Sanderson's mechanistic systems. They're three very basic words that I have to assume any writer has had beaten into their heads repeatedly. "Show, don't tell." For example, Jack Vance. The guy who created D&D's magic system. But he didn't say "oh god only three slots for a level 1 spell and this is a level 1 spell", he told you that spells are slippery and a mage can only remember so much at once, and once they cast them, that mental pattern leaves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
See. You're changing what I was defending and I actually fell into that trap as well. I was defending mechanistic magical systems originally. I think I used Sanderson as an example of one, that doesn't mean he's the end all be all or that I don't have some issues with Sanderson's writing, but I'm willing to put up with it to read a setting with a magic system that I enjoy. The same way I put up with a friend that has an annoying habit because I enjoy their company. Or anything else. Certainly, there are better writers than Sanderson who use mechanistic magic in their stories. Sanderson is just fresh on my mind. I just don't think that you can equate 'likes mechanistic/logical magic' with 'lol I cast fireball it does 5d6 to the troll' the way some posters tried to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
I've been reading malazan the book of the fallen and I lost interest with it because it just seemed to explode in terms of what was going on and who was gaining what powers. Will I regret not sticking with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:See, you're getting it! A derail would have to be off-topic, and the writing of magic in fantasy fiction is definitely germane to the topic. Why do you insist that the cost of a logically sound magic system is awkward writing? Do you think it's impossible for a magic system to make sense without being poorly written? FWIW I don't care for the D&D manual complaint re Sanderson either, if only because that's a mislabeling of what the problem actually is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I don't hold to that. In fact in my last post I even said that there are better writers and Sanderson was just an example of a mechanistic system. I did say that I was willing to put up with awkward writing to get a mechanistic magic system. I didn't say that it's a necessary trade off, just one I was willing to make for the Stormlight Archives. Seriously, reread my last post. Either you're reading too much into it or I'm a terrible communicator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
For something completely different, I found a blade runner esque book on amazon for a buck. Silicone Man by William Massa The premise sounds kind of interesting, and hell, if it sucks it was only a buck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hell, three words can explain the problem with Sanderson's mechanistic systems. They're three very basic words that I have to assume any writer has had beaten into their heads repeatedly. But he does show instead of tell here. The whole passage quoted was showing how it works and how it is used - during an assassination - with one sentence in two pages explaining that the magic he is using is about gravity (in the prologue of a new series, when it is used the first time).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Decius posted:But he does show instead of tell here. The whole passage quoted was showing how it works and how it is used - during an assassination - with one sentence in two pages explaining that the magic he is using is about gravity (in the prologue of a new series, when it is used the first time). The actual quote ("this was a Basic Lashing, the first of three lashings" blah blah blah) is the violation of the rule. The passage may be fine, but that actually makes it worse - what does that paragraph add that couldn't have been done through normal exposition? It's affecting gravity? Fine. Show me him using it to hold someone down and then later to float something. Hell, use it to hit him in the head with an apple. Don't tell me "yep, it affects gravity." Similarly, the "one of three lashings" - show me them and how they're different, don't tell me "there is Fire 1, Fire 2, and Fire 3." Hell, if the setting is appropriate, name them and show me what each does - nothing wrong with Golbez' Malignant Force and two other things. It can even add flavor (again, look at Vance, where those names were long-dead magicians and played into the whole setting dying.). Maybe the passage was trying to show, but Sanderson's inner systems nerd couldn't help himself and he threw in a blatant tell. Edit: go back and read the whole passage, but pretend the objectionable paragraph isn't there. Tell me it isn't better written for the omission. Kalman fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
D&D has ruined everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:A hyper powerful wizard playing it discrete is a vastly different character than a middling wizard going all out. Yes. You've almost got it
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
All hyper powerful wizards are discrete since D&D has a granular level system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's not even an inherent cost - you're creating a false dichotomy. You can write a mechanistic magic system and you can write it well. But most writers who attempt it (like Sanderson) don't know how, because they are Objectively Not Very Good on the technical level. Eh, I think this is going a little far. Sanderson writes some things relatively well and some things he has a harder time with. Your statement re: specific passages is probably a lot more defensible -- the "first of three lashings" bit is, well, pretty significantly flawed, but I'm not sure it's enough by itself to declare him a universally Bad Writer. It's no Evil Chicken. I mean don't get me wrong Sanderson is no Nabokov either. There are many successful writers out there who are a lot worse than he is, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Sanderson a decent if juvenile writer, but he has some pretty significant blind spots that tend to turn up. Explaining his magic systems without sounding awkward is one. Another one, which I think probably matters more, is his weakness at writing fight scenes that genuinely feel tense and terrifying. They're there more to look kickass and give the protagonists a chance to show off their mad skillz, which kind of kills any tension. I suppose that's another outgrowth of trying to write novels like superhero-comics. In combination, those two things can make for some seriously badly written scenes, though. I remember skimming over a lot of the fight scenes in the Mistborn series, because they all end up sounding like "Kelsier used his metal-pulling power, which is powered by metal scrap, and punched the enemy, who did a triple backflip and dodged by using his metal-pushing power, which is powered by different metal scrap." Cardiovorax fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Lowkin posted:I've been reading malazan the book of the fallen and I lost interest with it because it just seemed to explode in terms of what was going on and who was gaining what powers. Will I regret not sticking with it? If you feel that way, I would stop now. I read 9 out of 10 and regret it mostly for the things you mention: people kept hitting new super saiyan levels and the huge cast of characters that seemed only vaguely related to each other meant I didn't care much about any of them. I liked a few of the books more than the others, like the second and maybe Midnight Tides, I think. But there was way too much, "here is the most bad rear end god, whoa a fire cracker killed him! Here's an even badder assier god, whoa he got punched in the face and exploded!!" There's not really a payoff for putting up with that kind of stuff, if you don't like it you won't like the series.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
I have never seen anything related to d&d, have no idea where I would have to go to find it or even where to find somebody interested in it and if people hadn't been mentioning it constantly in this thread I'd never have taken notice of it. Can we please stop talking about whatever this is? General Battuta posted:It's not even an inherent cost - you're creating a false dichotomy. You can write a mechanistic magic system and you can write it well. But most writers who attempt it (like Sanderson) don't know how, because they are Objectively Not Very Good on the technical level. What you're forgetting is that pretty much all fantasy writers have bad prose anyway, regardless of which kind of magic system they use. I mean, yeah, there are plenty of fantasy writers using "hard magic" (to use Sanderson's terminolgy for writers like himself) that write bad prose. There are also plenty of fantasy writers using "soft magic" that write bad prose. Obviously only people in the first category can have bad prose about the magic system (because in the second they tend to evade talking about it), but that doesn't mean anything. Both Tolkien and Sanderson have horrible prose at times and both have plenty of superfluous paragraphs that break the "show don't tell rule", so when Sanderson has a horrible paragraph it's a bit quick to conclude that it's because he chose this particular way to explain his magic. In the end, I do think we largely agree, I just would state it slightly differently: it's possible to write a mechanistic magic system, but just like pretty much everything else in fantasy they tend to be written in a bad way. edit: typo Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:I have never seen anything related to d&d, have no idea where I would have to go to find it or even where to find somebody interested with it and if people hadn't been mentioning it constantly in this thread I'd never have taken notice of it. Can we please stop talking about whatever this is? I'm sure Sanderson knows about D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
So I finished Deepness in the Sky a couple nights ago and picked up a couple new books to read: Diaspora, which I will start soon, and Old Man's War which I ended up staying up until 3AM reading. Holy hell, I love the writing style and the dude's opinions don't seem like poo poo! He had the hyper-racist dude just have a heart attack and die because he was a lazy gently caress. And then old people hosed like rabbits for a week straight. I feel like it's a very fun book, and that is exactly what I wanted. I'm about halfway through it already though, should I continue with the series after this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So I finished Deepness in the Sky a couple nights ago and picked up a couple new books to read: Diaspora, which I will start soon, and Old Man's War which I ended up staying up until 3AM reading. Holy hell, I love the writing style and the dude's opinions don't seem like poo poo! He had the hyper-racist dude just have a heart attack and die because he was a lazy gently caress. And then old people hosed like rabbits for a week straight. I feel like it's a very fun book, and that is exactly what I wanted. They're alright, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So I finished Deepness in the Sky a couple nights ago and picked up a couple new books to read: Diaspora, which I will start soon, and Old Man's War which I ended up staying up until 3AM reading. Holy hell, I love the writing style and the dude's opinions don't seem like poo poo! He had the hyper-racist dude just have a heart attack and die because he was a lazy gently caress. And then old people hosed like rabbits for a week straight. I feel like it's a very fun book, and that is exactly what I wanted. Skip Zoe's Tale (he cranked that out due to contract obligations rather than having a story to tell and it shows) but yeah. It is interesting because his take isn't "war is good" like Heinlein or "war is bad" like Haldeman but "war is the result of the shortsighted class interests of the upperclass leading them to dangling motivational carrots to get the lower class to fight and die for their benefit" He calls it out a bit in Old Man's War with the bit about how the military is to easy a solution to use, so force is used rather than negotiation and the former diplomat not realizing he is just a tool for the elites pulling the strings but it really comes out in The Last Colony. Basically if starship troopers was about Korea/WW2 and forever war was about Vietnam, Old Man's War is about all the interventions and wars post 1980 Also, Ghost Brigades is basically him putting Karen Traviss in her place, which is nice Edit: that's probably a bad way to put that last line; I really doubt Scalzi would phrase it that way. At the time Traviss was writing about mil scifi issues with genetically modified soldiers and clones over in Star Wars, was basically using it to spout straight up fascism and was hugely abusive to other writers and readers. Ghost Brigades takes the same ideas and does it about 1000x better and puts paid to one of the core questions by pointing out that most books covering the morality of the issue completely ignored a while viewpoint. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Thank you! Yeah, I'm liking the tone so far. It seems like he's got kind of a freewheeling tone too, which is how I hope to be when I get old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:If you feel that way, I would stop now. I read 9 out of 10 and regret it mostly for the things you mention: people kept hitting new super saiyan levels and the huge cast of characters that seemed only vaguely related to each other meant I didn't care much about any of them. I liked a few of the books more than the others, like the second and maybe Midnight Tides, I think. But there was way too much, "here is the most bad rear end god, whoa a fire cracker killed him! Here's an even badder assier god, whoa he got punched in the face and exploded!!" There's not really a payoff for putting up with that kind of stuff, if you don't like it you won't like the series. Okay yea I stuck with it for the first few books but as you said it was just getting a bit ridiculous for my tastes. thanks I think I am going to start reading "In the name of the Wind". Does it leave you with a big cliff hanger or just and opening for a series to be started?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Lowkin posted:Okay yea I stuck with it for the first few books but as you said it was just getting a bit ridiculous for my tastes. thanks Honestly of all the complaints I have about Rothfuss, where he chooses to end each book isn't really one of them. If you're still with it at the end, you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Lowkin posted:I've been reading malazan the book of the fallen and I lost interest with it because it just seemed to explode in terms of what was going on and who was gaining what powers. Will I regret not sticking with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
At the very foundation, regardless of how you define or explain the magic, if you don't have a solid believable and intriguing character, its all crap. The very best, most fantastic world or science or magical laws don't do anything at all for the reader if they don't enjoy and live through the characters, be they "human" or "other"
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Magic is one of the reasons that the Mallorean is one of my favorite series. Belgariad as well, but mostly Mallorean. In the Mallorean, Belgarion goes out with his giant gently caress off sword with the Orb as the pommel, the jewel that's basically the all powerful macguffin of the series, and causes lightning bolts to hit all over the place because he's trying to break up a retarded fight between some dumb knights. He goes home all happy and chills, until Belgarath (the main wizard character who's his great^6 grandfather) shows up and chews his rear end while he's sitting on the throne being all kingly and  , feeling accomplished because he stopped the fight, except his loving with the weather caused all kinds of havoc across the planet with of his showing off with the bolts.Yes, I am spoilering a minor point in a book series that's pretty old, but I went into it blind and it had me laughing pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
GrannyW posted:At the very foundation, regardless of how you define or explain the magic, if you don't have a solid believable and intriguing character, its all crap. The very best, most fantastic world or science or magical laws don't do anything at all for the reader if they don't enjoy and live through the characters, be they "human" or "other" Agreed, and I think that the underlying issue is that magic in any story must have some sort of limits, otherwise it's just a Mary Sue/Marty Stu wish fulfillment. If being able to do magic basically makes you God, where's the conflict? You can have anything you want, and while a story about multiple magicians bickering with one another might be interesting, that's about the limit of it. So the limits get handled in varying ways. Some make the magic follow certain laws, like Sanderson (since we've been talking about him), or even Aaronovitch (Rivers of London), at least for magic as it is practiced by humans. Some handle it like LeGuin or Eddings in the example Stupid_Sexy_Flander was chuckling over, that you can do just about anything you can imagine but there's some kind of price to pay in upsetting the natural balance of things. Andre Norton and Mercedes Lackey also did that in the Elvenbane series, the more powerful mages would just "adjust" the weather and others had a terrible time cleaning up the resulting messes. Still others, like Barbara Hambly in the Windrose Chronicles, have boundaries in that complicated magic has to be done via some sort of ritual (although simple things can be accomplished with the traditional wave of the hand), and in her case, in order to learn the really interesting stuff, you must become a Council mage and forswear use of your power in all matters touching on humans. The penalty for meddling is death, even when it's something seemingly innocuous like making a farmer's crops grow. Again, it works with the idea of a balance, and that no human being can truly predict the long-term consequences of a given action. There are probably other authors that handle it in still another way, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Zola posted:Agreed, and I think that the underlying issue is that magic in any story must have some sort of limits, otherwise it's just a Mary Sue/Marty Stu wish fulfillment. If being able to do magic basically makes you God, where's the conflict? I mean, it's not like those magic systems ever make any actual sense when you take them apart. They're as much based in handwaving as faster-than-light travel of psychic powers are in science fiction. Especially because authors who love the things have this habit of going "...and that's why character XYZ is super special and can do the explicitly impossible thing regardless."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:If not for this weird assumption that any use of supernatural elements must necessarily mean "anything goes" unless it's explicitly described why it doesn't, all those awkward circumscriptions probably wouldn't be necessary. I don't know where that even comes from. How many fairy tales go into paragraph-long descriptions of the underpinnings of magic before making the witch turn the prince into a toad? There's no less of a conflict to the story for that. You just proved my point, though. Even in fairy tales, there's a limit to what the magic can do, otherwise the forces of Good wouldn't be able to overcome the evil witch/warlock/fairy what have you. If a witch can turn someone into a toad, why can't she make the toad invisible too? The fairy tales imply limits, and its the limits that make the conflict possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I'm interested in picking up Lord of The Rings for the first time, but some of the reviews for what I think is the recent publication point out alot of spelling errors that mess with some of the book's intentions. I know my older copy of the Hobbit was of author's notes and maps and LOTR probably is supposed to have those as well, though maybe not every version has all of those. Does anyone know which particular set of LOTR books is the one to pick up? Are they all pretty much the same nowadays or is an older (but affordable) version higher quality? I'm interested in picking them up individually and not as an omnibus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Zola posted:You just proved my point, though. Even in fairy tales, there's a limit to what the magic can do, otherwise the forces of Good wouldn't be able to overcome the evil witch/warlock/fairy what have you. If a witch can turn someone into a toad, why can't she make the toad invisible too? The fairy tales imply limits, and its the limits that make the conflict possible. The need to constantly explain everything basically a symptom of that world builder's disease where authors forget to write an engaging story over making up a setting for the story to happen in. The magic is a backdrop, it's a conceit of the genre to enable a certain kind of plot. It shouldn't be the whole point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 20:17
|
|