[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 35 KB, 408x452, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15980826 No.15980826 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/ what type of magic systems do you think would be interesting to see?

>> No.15980859
File: 2.27 MB, 2448x3264, 1019195.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15980859

Something understated, like how magic was used in LOTR. Not laser beams coming from wands.

>> No.15980888
File: 13 KB, 220x304, aleister creepy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15980888

sexual butthole magic, like Crowley's thelema

>> No.15980927

>>15980859
I found it interesting GRRM himself also agreed with Tolkien's approach with magic.

Most hard magic systems are borderline autistic. It kinda takes away the mystery.

>> No.15980945

>>15980859
I love how magic is so closely tied to the power of the voice, music and singing in Tolkien's work.

>> No.15980948

>>15980826
Nice post idea OP. The Eragon magic system was based. Storing energy in objects makes for lots of interesting situations. And whole armies having wizards mentally fighting to maintain wards behind them is really cool.

>> No.15980956

>>15980888
>sexual butthole magic
How do I get into this?

>> No.15980964

>>15980826
Go back to plebbit Brian Sanderson

>> No.15980998

>>15980945
why

>> No.15981019
File: 476 KB, 1600x900, beatles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15981019

>>15980956
Read Crowley

>> No.15981063

>>15980927
Do the actual rules matter or is it more about presentation?
If you have a hard magic system presented in an understated way where the world doesn't understand it yet, so the reader doesn't understand it, but it has fundamental rules, would it be considered hard fantasy?

>> No.15981234

>>15981063
More representation ie magic we haven't seen yet or new magic could be made

>> No.15981290

>>15980998
why not

>> No.15981435

The "magic" from the story of Cú Chulainn was interesting because it was so believable. I can really believe that some old ladies could shame someone into eating a piece of poisoned dog meat. I could totally believe that someone could sneak into royal chambers and smear toxic oil on princesses' faces. The plausibility of the witchcraft made the story more compelling than a bunch of "suspend your disbelief" hocus pocus bullshit.

>> No.15981596

An original one.

>> No.15981748

>>15980859
But Gandalf casually turns pine cones into fire projectiles against Wargs, nukes Nazgûl with lightning bolts, burns goblins alive with white phosphorus etc.

>> No.15981772

Magic based on danmaku patterns.

>> No.15981805

>>15981234
more black people casting magic.

>> No.15981806

>>15981435
One of the things that makes magic so believable in the Táin Bó Cúailnge is that it's simply presented as reality. A character shapeshifts into a swan? No big deal. Cú Chulainn forces duels by way of geasa? Part of everyday life. Entire kingdom wracked with birthing pains? Well, duh, the king shouldn't have made his pregnant wife race a horse! That's just common sense!

>> No.15981858

Unironically, my favorite depiction of magic use is Achamian's scene in The Darkness that comes before. A pseudo non fiction 3 paragraph essay on grammar showed how one magic system was superior to the other, vague enough to make it mysterious and awe inspiring, and elegant like magic should be. I later discovered the way spells are words of power and language first and foremost had a bit of Vance in it, maybe from the purple lyricism. Still I'd say Vance is almost on the other far end of the spectrum ('cast Firebolt'), even though it's not technically magic.

>>15981063
It's always the presentation.
Mistborn sounds like some DnD manual, or worse.
The whole alar and all that sympathies bullshit in Name of the Wind was masturbatory and YA like (maybe it's okay if you like the Avatar cartoon). Okay, so there's magic relating to the "will" and to substances. Right. Every reader can intuit this. There's no need to describe the thought process. Or if you will, don't do it technically. A few words showing what might work and what wouldn't would be alright to set limitations. No need to explain the mechanics because the writer holds all the keys. If he fools himself thinking the reader will be autistic enough to predict or solve something, or knowing all this will put him on the same level as the characters or the writer, he'd be retarded.

>> No.15981886

>>15981858
>(cont'd)
(Of course, this only applies if you're more interested in the literary aspect. If you want to write a videogame in book form because that's what you like or what you think will sell, go full autistic).

>> No.15981944

>>15980826
None.

There is nothing to gain from explaining the clear rules of made up shit. Hint what's possible and go back to the story.

>> No.15982036
File: 48 KB, 362x362, 1361439861606.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15982036

>>15980826
Magic systems are stupid bullshit for shounen-obsessed midwits

>> No.15982048

>>15982036
I am a shoujo-seinen enthusiast.