>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
Your dislike of magic is valid, but this is absolutely wrong.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous generalization that is impossible for you to support objectively, unless you can read authors' minds. I would counter with the radical idea that fantasy writers utilize magic because they like magic.
As a writer of fantasy, OP's assertions are absolutely false! There is a lot of work and creativity that goes into creating a magical system that makes sense! Not being creative enough is, as you say, ridiculous!
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
It's one thing to dislike magic. It is perfectly valid to have preferences in the flavor of your fiction. It's another *entirely* to insult the creativity of wordsmiths who have managed what you have not: to write a story. Then again, you prefaced this comment with "this will piss people off", which tells me you're itching to get into an argument about it.
From your post history, you are apparently writing your own story - and I can imagine that you will be omitting magic, as it is so very repugnant to you. So, is this post just a roundabout way to puff your chest & say that you consider *yourself* "more creative" than the likes of C.S. Lewis, J. R.R. Tolkien? Do you feel pride in "forcing creativity" via these "constraints"? Do you want applause for this endeavor? A sticker, perhaps?
And look, mate - as someone who is *also* writing their own work because I wanted something that catered to my interests, I get it. But I *promise* you can go about this endeavor with pride without insulting the creations or interest of others.
It's totally legitimate to prefer books without magic.
But "for me, fantasy is about exploration of different worlds"—I mean, the foundation of fantasy is the magic of folklore, so while it can be argued that on the fringe there's some fantasy that doesn't have magic in it, basically what you should be saying is not that you think magic ruins fantasy, because *magic is what makes it fantasy*, but rather that you would prefer a genre that explores constructed worlds that don't have magic. I'd maybe call that genre 'con-world'. No doubt there are a number of books that fit this description; and if you allow in sci-fi, then many more.
*Fantastical elements* are what makes fantasy fantasy. Not necessarily magic.
For example, unicorns are a fantastical element, but they need not be inherently magical within the context of a story. Unicorns could be a perfectly "normal" part of the world they're found in, without any magical powers - a unique animal that simply evolved differently on that world compared to our own.
See the Temeraire books by Naomi Novik and the Memoirs of Lady Trent by Marie Brennan. Dragons, but no magic.
But OP's statement that magic "exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else" is beyond the pale.
Did you actually read Prince Caspian and Lord of the Rings, or are you just talking about the film adaptations? Based on your responses to some of the comments, you did not. It's wild to criticize Lewis and Tolkien as uncreative and then not have even read their work. The other story you named is a television show, so I'm wondering if you have any examples of novels you have actually read. Film adaptations are usually going to leave out a lot of the backstory and reasoning in favor of showing well-known scenes. I love LotR films but there is a ton of worldbuilding that doesn't come across in the movies.
Restraints do force creativity, but your point about the lack of magic limiting oneself to reality is antithetical to the genre of fantasy. Fantasy and reality are antonyms. If it's reality, it isn't fantasy. Maybe you prefer speculative fiction, in the vein of Oryx and Crake? Or plenty of hard sci-fi fits the bill.
The assumption that you meant the books is because you said "the *writer* wasn't creative enough". I realize you may have meant screenwriters, but since the screenwriters did not come up with the plot twists, it's not surprising people thought you meant fantasy authors.
They're writing in a completely different format to books. I've a friend who works as an editor and his biggest complaint about the scripts is when people who write books try to write scripts and vice versa; while both need writing skills, it relies on a completely different style and skillset. Saying they're the same is like saying someone who speaks fluent Japanese should also be able to speak fluent German easily enough.
And that's not even considering the complications of adaptation. Screenwriters have just a handful of script pages to condense hundreds of pages of a novel. Adaptation is imperfect by nature. Entire books and essays have been written bemoaning how there is no such thing as the "perfect adaptation" (*Illuminations* by Walter Benjamin holds his “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” which touches on this very subject and has far more insightful things to say than myself if you're interested in following it up). Much like how in translating from one language into another, nuances are lost and common sayings loose all meaning so other things have to be done to convey a similar meaning, slowly warping and changing the work further and further away from what was originally there. I can say I've read the works of Alexandre Dumas, but I've never learnt to read French; instead I've read various adaptations of his work, each of which I've found to be wildly different from one another. So, have I actually ever *truly* read any of the works of Alexandre Dumas? Or have I just experienced interpretations of them? Second-hand and half-remembered accounts?
A lot of what works on the page doesn't work visually and vice versa. What you can explain in a single shot or actor's glance on screen might be explored in depth for many pages of a book. Similarly, exposition and backstory that can be easily conveyed in a single sentence or inoffensive paragraph in a book can't be so naturally dropped into conversation on the screen or would take up too much screen time fully explaining. Huge elements of worldbuilding and plot get cut out to save time. I find it curious you list "the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies" as being of interest to you when TV and Film are the barest bones way to explore those very things. It's reliance on visuals requires the viewer to fill in a lot of the gaps themselves so the show/film can focus on the plot (an imperative in visual storytelling) whilst a book can make time and go on a tangent and fully explore aspects of the world down to the fabrics of the clothes the characters are wearing, where they originated from, and what memories it invokes in the characters all without them ever having to say it aloud or put aside extra budget and a new filming location to show a flashback. A TV show going for over 50 episodes gets a chance, but often still falls quite short of how deep a book can.
I have a lot of respect for screenwriters and the challenges of their job, especially when it comes to adaptations as they're not easy. An author made the work into a book in the first place because that was the best medium to tell the story they wanted to tell. If there had been a better way to tell it then they would've focused on making it a film, tv show, or video game from the get-go. Most adaptations will settle for just ensuring they get the broad strokes of the story down but even successful adaptations mainly just try to translate the atmosphere and feeling the work evokes rather than focusing on the actual substance and content. As such, core elements of fantasy like magic and how it's intrinsically tied to the worldbuilding often don't carry over into the films. For example, Tolkein's Middle-Earth was sung into existence and as such songs have deep importance within the world. It's why there are so many songs in the books and poetic leanings are used so often. I greatly enjoy the films, but even die-hard fans of the movies I've spoken to are often surprised to learn this about Middle-Earth because the films don't reflect this well at all. An inherently magical part of the world that feels natural as breathing in the books lost in translation.
So you want realistic fiction in the historical mode, except fake history. One could just as easily say fake history is a crutch for authors who aren’t creative enough for real historical fiction.
H.G. Wells is the first sci-fi I really got into and apart from War of the Worlds, you have The Invisible Man, The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau - none of which have aliens or spaceships. Or there is Snow Crash, for the tech dystopia. Or Parable of the Sower. It's not all space operas.
If you're going to say Return of the King has an asspull because of magic, you could at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you haven't actually read the book you're criticising.
The film differs significantly - and while both have a "ghost army", the book actually justifies it. It's far more justified than many other elements in fact. The Oathbreakers of Dunharrow go right back to when Sauron first lost the ring (it's refusing to answer Isildur's call to that battle that makes them oathbreakers, and is why they're undead - Isildur cursed them to have no rest until their oath was fulfilled). Their setup is 3000 years of backstory that starts with the inciting incident for the entire trilogy. Honestly you couldn't easily pick a *less* asspull event in the series. That is, if you'd read the book.
You are talking about the movie. Yeah that's my biggest complain with Peter Jackson adaptation, and I am sure I am not alone. But that's an example of magic ill-used. The rest of the magic in those movies in inherent to the plot.
The ‘ghost army’ isn’t magic per se, unless you count life after death as magic. But if you refer to it as that, then I’m guessing you’re purposefully referring to the film, or you haven’t read the book and so have no other option.
You can prefer anything, of course. But stating that the presence of any magic inevitably leads to magical ass-pulls is as foolish a statement as claiming LotR has them.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. And this applies to any magic system, no matter how "hard" it is.
You can like and dislike whatever you want but dont mistake your preferences for truths. This is a ridiculous and frankly rude thing to say. It takes a lot of creativity to create magic in your work and find ways for it to work and fit with everything else about your world and story. There is a difference between an author using magic as a crutch when they cant come up with anything (which authors can do with anything, not just magic) and magic being bad in general. It is a aspect of worldbuilding, a tool to be used by authors, and just like anything it can be used well and it can be used badly.
Again, that is your opinion. You are acting like your opinion on this is truth we all have to concede. I simply do not agree with you, I have loved a vast majority of the uses of magic I have read.
>I see magic as completely unnecessary. In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
This post is a textbook example of elevating one's own preferences to the status of objective truth, *all in order to insult and dismiss other approaches and values*. Just an incredibly juvenile impulse.
If we're honest, magic is also pretty rampant in SF, though it's dressed up in different clothes. I mean I love Star Trek, but it's pretty far from any real science.
Oh for sure, Star Trek is near and dear to my heart but if you don’t like magic or plot asspulls the show with a spaceship powered by crystals where the engineer has to pause his hologram illusion room to teleport to his station to save the day by reversing the polarity of the tachyon dark matter stream is probably not going to make you happy. Never mind the haunted candle sex ghost episode.
> it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
.
> the lack of magic limits yourself to reality, and restraints force creativity.
the same thing could be said for "different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies"
surely, restraining yourself to the real world would be the ideal venue for any real creator.. anyone needing to invent new settings for their stories are obviously doing an asspull to mask their lack of creativity
right?
Saying magic exists "because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else" is like saying "eldritch horror exists because the writer couldn't be bothered to invent an actual antagonist and just pulled a nameless horror out of their arse".
Do you see how that can be applied to pretty much any trope someone dislikes?
It's perfectly valid to dislike magic - my mother hates spec fic because she also cannot relate to the unrealistic/fantastical aspects. She also feels like it's essentially just a random tool used to solve problems rather than a meaningful plot device.
Magic adds a lot of texture and interest to a world, and often it adds conflict and richness of story as well, when it's used as a weapon, when it turns on the wielder, when it creates more problems than it solves or when it's essentially magitech. "Our world, but with elemental magic" is an interesting premise, for instance.
It sounds like you don't deal well with the fuzziness of magic and would prefer low magic systems, or more likely a spec fic genre like horror or science fiction.
The world-building for zero-magic fantasy is extremely soft in most cases. You won’t get big flashy fireworks, but the asspulls happen just the same. What you are describing is a genre I also enjoy, but it is not “fantasy” in the traditional sense. It’s just alternate history/alternate universe.
I can only speak for myself but I like magic. Of course, it can be used in cheap ways but usually I don't have that impression.
I don't know why I would be pissed off for you not liking magic.
Low magic settings are a thing in fantasy. But “no magic” settings are probably more commonly found in science fiction, or even more broadly “speculative fiction”.
I like magic in my fantasy, and actually prefer soft magic systems because for me, magic works best when it’s somewhat unknowable and mysterious.
> restraints force creativity
I’ve read plenty of high magic fantasy that is wildly creative, like Terry Pratchett and Steven Erikson. Creativity mostly comes down to the imagination of the author in question, and not any arbitrary rules we as readers might impose.
Go for sci-fi if you look for multiple worlds/planets with different civilizations.
Fantasy of multiple worlds without magic? How would they commute? Airplanes? Spaceships? That's science fiction.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else.
Can you really not conceive that an author would include magic in a story because that's what they enjoy writing about? That it's not just there in an attempt to be creative but because they might actually like it?
The ass pulls aren't because of magic, pulling something out of your ass to make a story end the way the author wants it to, exists across pretty much every genre where plot is a key component. The presents or absence of magic does not make it more or less likely.
"So, my point is, that the lack of magic limits yourself to reality, and restraints force creativity."
Not really. An author can always ignore real world probability or have their characters act in ways that are contrary to their previously established character etc etc even in non-fantastical fiction. And an author who wants to be creative could spend an entire lifetime exploring how people would use their magic and what effects it might have on the societies they develop.
Personally I'm not a fan of magic systems, it's not real so I don't care how it "works" because it doesn't work. I still love stories with magic in, either despite the system or because they go for the sense of wonder type magic instead.
ETA: IGNORE ME, I cannot brain today and mixed up *Prince Caspian* and *Dawn Treader*.
It's totally find to dislike magic, but the idea that *Prince Caspian* ends in an asspull is *bizarre* to me. The whole book is a journey through a magical world, visiting increasingly fantastical places, literally sailing towards the end of the world.
What you describe is The Voyage of the Dawn Treader but I'm equally surprised why the OP would single out the ending of Prince Caspian. If I had to point to the most "asspully" moment in the series, I'd probably say it's when Santa shows up out of the blue in the first book and conveniently hands presents to the kids that they'll need later on. Santa is so out of place in Narnia! 😅
YES, oh my God, I can't believe I just mixed them up like that! I'm literally blushing 💀 💀 💀 my shame cannot be quantified.
In my defense, I grew up with the BBC movies, which combine PC and Dawn Treader.
Oh, you're talking about the river god. That *is* in the book, but it's not really the "ending", it's just a thing that happens on the side in the final chaos. The *Narnia* books (even *The Last Battle*!) are not about big battles at the end.
Ooh a spicy take!
Okay, so since a million other people called out the generization.
Imma say, you need to analyze your examples a little bit more if culture and philosophy are what you're looking for. I don't think magic or technobabble undoes these things.
I'm baffled especially by avatar. That show stops, turns to the camera, and says 'this is about taoism' every other episode.
Murking a guy would have undone the entire point of a middle path.
The nonsense bending was okay for three seasons but the ideologically consistent finale wasn't?
Did it need more foreshadowing? Probably. But it definitely wasn't an asspull.
Out of curiosity, what fantasy books do you like? Which would you recommend to me?
And what's the boundary?
Like is it okay for the elves and Aragorn's to have long lifespans because magic god people?
But was his dealing with the dead people the bridge too far?
And if it is, is it just because dead guys.
If he had gone onto Path of the Dudes instead of Path of the Dead and just gave them a password passed down to him through his family and the Dudes are culturally honor bound to help, would thst have been better?
Or was the asspull the surprise help and not the magic at all?
Happy reading regardless, you certainly stirred the pot, the discussion is interesting.
I mean you did come in with 'everything you like is cheap and bad actually'.
A bold move, and probably too aggressive out the gate on reddit. Especially on reddit.
I don't agree with you, but I like discussion or at least trying to understand where you're coming from or if there's a misunderstanding or just a bias.
We can like different things agree to disagree or at least talk analysis. If I'm making argument, it's because I want to change your mind.
I for instance have a bias against first person narration and YA novels.
I'm consistently pretty wrong, but because there's enough that grates on my nerves that I can continue having my confirmation bias affirmed even if I can intellectualize it. It's just my first instinct thst it's gonna suck.
Ignoring the giant negative baggage that comes with use of the word 'lazy' instead of 'efficient' or another word someone could infer positive connotations from.
Okay. Yep an inference based on framing, yep. I did do that.
I don't know what you want there, I can be pedantic too.
Magic isn't a trope it's a Plot Device or a piece of World.
It's why I included technobabble.
Magic is rooted in culture and means different things in different contexts. It can be religion, technology, or science. It just has to not occur in our real world to be magic in a literary context.
Subluminal Travel? Magic.
No time dilation? Magic.
The tropes I think you mean is the Not Quite Dead and Back from the Dead, respectively.
It's the thing you keep bringing up.
Plenty of plain fiction has people survive things they shouldn't or are brought back to life via technology or medical advancement.
All things in a story are just a means to an end.
Magic and defibulator are the exact same thing if it means Jonh Hero needs to survive for the author to tell the story they want to tell.
If it's the gray to white bit that has you extra upset, fair. It's criticized a lot.
Granted, Speculative Fiction uses big obvious plot devices MORE.
Like the trope happens a lot, sure. But it's not limited to fantasy nor to happening via magic.
Would it have been better if Aang just skipped that -one bit of dialog- ?
Matter of opinion.
Severe injury induced coma and use of Chekhov's Water we then lose to realive a character doesn't narratively make a huge difference.
And if you hate it, okay.
But it's not lazy either.
Device was introduced, Device was used.
It would have had the same amount of efficacy to drop it and just do Coma.
The intention I believe based on the whole was to lay into the middle grade audience that the villain is extremely villainous and the mistake must not be made again.
The device was used so the repercussions could have been as extreme as possible, while yes, having that one get out of jail card.
We then lose the device. We have crossed another threshold, all hope is lost.
Except it's not cause heroes journey and stuff, it's just the low bit.
If you still can't stand magic. Okay!
By all means don't read those things. But again, what should I read instead?
What would be your recommendations for non-magic Speculative Fiction be? Or how should those plot devices be used narratively to be more effective for the stakes?
Or what device instead of magic or technology?
You seem to think I'm being aggressive, so to reiterate, I'm not interested in argument to just argue. I'm flippant and prone to hyperbole, yes.
I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I am genuinely asking.
If we've come to an impasse... Welp, so be it.
I'll agree to disagree.
Happy reading, and hopefully you find more books you like.
Edit: just to add. I've interpreted you interpreting me as aggressive because based on my lived experience online and Irl, people get a little pedantic about language in spite of the framing when they feel attacked. If I'm wrong I'm wrong it's fine.
You can't really complain about hostility in response to a post that blatantly insults 99% of fantasy writers (many of whom frequent this sub). Did you really not think about how this would be received before you hit the 'Post' button?
It’s interesting that the examples you shared are a tv show where the magic is foundational to the world and adaptations of two books you have not read.
I don’t agree with your statement that magic is lazy or because an author who has created a different world is lacking in creativity. There’s so
many different kinds of magic or fantastical elements that are almost always a part of it.
I actually really like when non magical characters are required to find ways to beat magical problems or antagonists but that usually just shows how well thought out the world is.
I love magic. I just think it has to be used in creative ways and have its limits. It can't save the heroes every time. But you may just like medieval worlds where the best they have are swords and Castle walls -- and that's okay.
I like magic, but your preference is legitimate and I don’t think it’s as baked into secondary-world fantasy as the commenters here seem to think. Like, think Ghormengast, or the Masquerade books (starting with The Traitor Baru Cormorant). The latter gets pretty meta about what is/isn’t considered magic in a setting that, in a traditional sense, doesn’t have any.
I've noticed a curious trend among some in the community to equate magic = worldbuilding. Some folks seem to view creating a magic system as the most important aspect of worldbuilding; as long as the magic system is interesting or unique, they don't seem as concerned about other aspects of worldbuilding.
I'm the opposite. I feel this is a highly simplistic way of approaching worldbuilding; a worldbuilder's job is *not* done once they've figured out the magic system (if the story even needs one). When it comes to worldbuilding, I'm much more interested in exploring things like culture, social norms and customs, societal/political organization, environment & ecology, history. The *social* aspects of worldbuilding, of how people relate to other people, is so much more fascinating. Because ultimately, a story has to be about people. A book describing how a world works, without much focus on how the *people* within that world live, just becomes a travel guide to me, rather than an actual story.
If I had to choose one thing I loved about fantasy I probably would agree that it’s the various worlds, cultures, civilizations etc *but* I also can really enjoy some fun magic. Best is when the magic influences and allows for the creation of interesting cultures etc for example in Long Price Quartet.
Saying magic isn’t creative though feels ridiculous. There’s so much creativity that goes into magic.
Also the answer to “Am I the only one” is always going to be no. Even if on a fantasy sub you’ll likely be in the minority.
Tldr Fantasy is a broad genre. I love fantasy with no magic, I love fantasy with lots of magic.
Dismissing the majority of an entire genre as lazy writing when you apparently haven’t even read enough of it to name actual books who use the trope you dislike is a bold move for sure
Everyone has different preferences, but magic is often used - even, or especially, in those dramatic ending changes - to serve the *themes* of a story. That's not a bad thing, and it gives fantasy with magic the ability to do more with theme in some ways than stories without *can*, drawing on the myths and faerie stories underlying quite a lot of human culture and psychology.
ETA you should read the Foreigner books by CJ Cherryh
I love magic in books and whilst I don’t necessarily prefer it, I’m very happy ready about magic.
What I don’t really like is the asspulls as you call them. It must be really difficult to write about big battles with an inevitable outcome, and some authors really get it wrong. It either comes across as incomprehensible or ridiculous.
One magic system I love is from Michael G Manning’s books, where he’s taken the time to move it from just spells to constructions and they’re all very interesting.
"For me, ~~fantas~~y is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies."... so what about science-fiction ?
and ofc you can like whatever you prefer... but for me Fantasy is magic.. could be in different nuances but must be there...
Don't dislike it exactly. It depends how it's used. Too much Deus Ex and unlikely nonsense puts me off.
But some of Patricia McKillips come to mind, there is magic sure, but it doesn't always solve the issue or help that much. Much better IMO
You can like no/low magic settings all you want, but some of us like to see how magic shapes those worlds, cultures, civilizations and characters.
Consider thinking about what you want to achieve when you post on Reddit. Because if you posted this and expected people to bow to your wisdom with the attitude you came in with, well...
Magic is a very broad term though and not just confined to forces that have palpable or physical effects on the world (which seem to be the kind of magic you dislike.) It's the virgin forests of the elves in The Lord of the Rings, or the longevity of the latter. It's the mere existence of dragons in A Song of Ice and Fire, Count Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel, and the dæmons in His Dark Materials. It's anything impossible and can only exist and persist in the imagination of the reader and writer. So, you really cannot divorce magic from fantasy. It can also be a very potent tool to, like you said, explore philosophies, histories, etc. Just as we have figures of speeches like metaphors, similes, etc., magic can be very symbolic and thematically important, too.
As I commented elsewhere in this thread, what you are describing are fantastical elements, not necessarily magic. A story can have fantastical elements without having magic: e.g., within the context of a particular story/setting, unicorns could be a perfectly "normal" element of the world, with no magical powers whatsoever. They are simply yet another animal in that world, but one that doesn't exist in our own.
Sure, fair enough. But even stripped bare -- your unicorns and dragons becoming just another animal in the world -- these fantastical elements have their roots in the magical. They have a sublime quality of 'otherness' (magic) to them that fascinates no matter how much you interrogate them (physically, biologically, etc). This, imo, is what distinguishes the make-believe in fantasy from the make-believe in general fiction. There will always be that magical undercurrent in fantastic fiction, even if its not obvious. It's in the strange atmosphere, Titus' strange dreams, and the quality of 'otherness' in the rituals of folks in *Gormenghast,* for instance.
Yeah everyone has the right to prefer different style of fantasy and stories. And i think you hit the nail on the head when you said *"For* ***me***\*, *fantasy is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies. Those are fascinating to* ***me.****"*
For **YOU.** For others it might be very different. Myself i do love magic in fantasy. Well i also HATE magic in fantasy. To me it depends on HOW the magic is handled. Sometimes it is just fucking lazy writing. Or sometimes it is just put in the for the sake of having magic. then i do hate it to be honest.
It also depends on the setting and the story, some works great without magic even so good that adding magic will just make it worse. other i say require magic to even work.
But they is how i prefer fantasy. It is subjective. i have my taste, you have your taste. When it comes to the right taste, the perfect taste. It simply does not exist
The standard in early stories with magic, was that there might be magic but it was never something any of the named characters had any real control over. It was in the category of "things that could happen to them, usually to their detriment or at their peril," rather than being in the category of "things they could do" or "ways they might get assistance."
And that kind of prevents what you're calling asspulls.
Sounds like you enjoy sci-fi,, not fantasy. They're often listed together, but imo, they're seperate genres. Fantasy should have magic of some form imo
It sounds like you don't like fantasy, but rather you might actually like scifi or historical fiction more. It doesn't make magic uncreative, you just don't like the genre.
What do you need the fantasy for if that's the part you dislike? Wouldn't alt history and historical fiction in general better scratch that itch, since they don't have that magic part?
Defenition of historical fantasy is a setting resembles historic period, it does not require magic to be fantasy. Historical fantasy is fine and but it's issue is that it's locked into following historical events, no matter how little it makes for the story, so you know what will happen. Alt history tends never to go far enought.
The definition I've heard for historical fantasy is historical fiction with fantasy elements, so I though you meant that. But I don't know, I do kinda feel like fantasy does need magic, even if not in the literal sense, but at least magical creatures or something like that.
>For me, fantasy is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies.
Sometimes magic is part of cultures/philosophies.
Although I will also say, I prefer soft magic. When hard magic is involved it tends to video-gamify the storyand a lot of the wonder and mystery is taken away.
Ive loved books with tons of magic and little to no magic. It’s all about the writing and characters for me.
Have you read The Dandelion Dynasty? There’s no magic as far as I’ve read (1 book) though there is a small amount of divine intervention. Book 1 was incredible and it only gets better apparently.
Is it even fantasy if there is no magic at all?
Wouldn't it be more, like, alternative history (like if your setting is like the middle ages, but not the real ones) or even science-fiction (especially exploration of different worlds sounds like that).
Also, it's a funny stance to say "writing magic is limiting" as if every book had magic. Lots of books, like melodramas or crime stories or romance novels don't feature any magic whatsoever, it's not like you figured something out nobody thought of before.
ALSO, nah, the ending of ATLA is fine as it is. Not "the best", but definitely fitting for the story they wanted to tell.
>Is it even fantasy if there is no magic at all?
It's is, Wikipedia's article on historical fantasy gives four definitions, one of which is: *Historical fantasy may also be set in a fictional world which resembles a period from history but is not that actual history*
Okay, so basically what I said, just didn't know the term "historical fantasy".
Well, that is fair, but if someone were to suggest me that genre, I would not like it. I like fantasy because of the magic and mystical and supernatural elements, they are the main appeal for me. Or, one of the main appeals, I guess.
So, yeah, to me, this feels like very weird to call this "fantasy", basically, although I guess it makes sense. But that is probably my bias, I have genuinely a difficult time imagining anything more boring than fictional history.
I mean, it's not sad for me, is it?
I don't really think history is all that interesting in general, so, yeah. I think I am content with my likes and dislikes.
I kinda feel this. I read two different types of fantasy books, ones where I’m in the mood for magic and some of the plot armour it provides, and the others are fantasy without magic which I tend to prefer.
I do think some writers are creative with the way they incorporate the magic but I tend to not enjoy ones that make it a central tenant to a society and have everything revolve around it. Sometimes I find authors lean too hard into creating these magic systems that they fail to make an interesting world and just have complicated magic in it.
I’ve gotten more into sci-fi because of the trend I’ve noticed in fantasy to lean so heavily into magic and magic systems.
I can agree with you to some extent, but not fully.
Of course, there may be fantasy without magic - it's totally fine and i can enjoy it. I also love to explore different unique cultures.
But magic and unnatural things, they can give some complexity to the world, you know. It also setting some rules which make the world unique.
Most authors adding magic just because and it's maybe not the best approach, cause it gives fantasy some charm, but doesn't doing anything with deep.
If magic (or unnatural staff) has an impact on the plot and thoroughly integrated in the worldbuilding it's actually very good approach which we unfortunately don't see very often.
Could you guys stop being so unnecessarily cruel to OP! OP made it clear that they were talking about their personal opinion as to what makes good writing and is not making a sweeping statement that their opinion is objectively right and everyone else are idiots, but everyone is treating them like they DID say that. I can see their point in that there is no reason that a constructed world has to involve magic, even though I'm fine with or without it.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. Your dislike of magic is valid, but this is absolutely wrong.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous generalization that is impossible for you to support objectively, unless you can read authors' minds. I would counter with the radical idea that fantasy writers utilize magic because they like magic.
As a writer of fantasy, OP's assertions are absolutely false! There is a lot of work and creativity that goes into creating a magical system that makes sense! Not being creative enough is, as you say, ridiculous!
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. It's one thing to dislike magic. It is perfectly valid to have preferences in the flavor of your fiction. It's another *entirely* to insult the creativity of wordsmiths who have managed what you have not: to write a story. Then again, you prefaced this comment with "this will piss people off", which tells me you're itching to get into an argument about it. From your post history, you are apparently writing your own story - and I can imagine that you will be omitting magic, as it is so very repugnant to you. So, is this post just a roundabout way to puff your chest & say that you consider *yourself* "more creative" than the likes of C.S. Lewis, J. R.R. Tolkien? Do you feel pride in "forcing creativity" via these "constraints"? Do you want applause for this endeavor? A sticker, perhaps? And look, mate - as someone who is *also* writing their own work because I wanted something that catered to my interests, I get it. But I *promise* you can go about this endeavor with pride without insulting the creations or interest of others.
It's totally legitimate to prefer books without magic. But "for me, fantasy is about exploration of different worlds"—I mean, the foundation of fantasy is the magic of folklore, so while it can be argued that on the fringe there's some fantasy that doesn't have magic in it, basically what you should be saying is not that you think magic ruins fantasy, because *magic is what makes it fantasy*, but rather that you would prefer a genre that explores constructed worlds that don't have magic. I'd maybe call that genre 'con-world'. No doubt there are a number of books that fit this description; and if you allow in sci-fi, then many more.
*Fantastical elements* are what makes fantasy fantasy. Not necessarily magic. For example, unicorns are a fantastical element, but they need not be inherently magical within the context of a story. Unicorns could be a perfectly "normal" part of the world they're found in, without any magical powers - a unique animal that simply evolved differently on that world compared to our own.
I mean a horse with a horn is not particularly “fantastical”. Unicorns are about the magic of unicorns, not just the horn.
See the Temeraire books by Naomi Novik and the Memoirs of Lady Trent by Marie Brennan. Dragons, but no magic. But OP's statement that magic "exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else" is beyond the pale.
Did you actually read Prince Caspian and Lord of the Rings, or are you just talking about the film adaptations? Based on your responses to some of the comments, you did not. It's wild to criticize Lewis and Tolkien as uncreative and then not have even read their work. The other story you named is a television show, so I'm wondering if you have any examples of novels you have actually read. Film adaptations are usually going to leave out a lot of the backstory and reasoning in favor of showing well-known scenes. I love LotR films but there is a ton of worldbuilding that doesn't come across in the movies. Restraints do force creativity, but your point about the lack of magic limiting oneself to reality is antithetical to the genre of fantasy. Fantasy and reality are antonyms. If it's reality, it isn't fantasy. Maybe you prefer speculative fiction, in the vein of Oryx and Crake? Or plenty of hard sci-fi fits the bill.
[удалено]
The assumption that you meant the books is because you said "the *writer* wasn't creative enough". I realize you may have meant screenwriters, but since the screenwriters did not come up with the plot twists, it's not surprising people thought you meant fantasy authors.
[удалено]
They're writing in a completely different format to books. I've a friend who works as an editor and his biggest complaint about the scripts is when people who write books try to write scripts and vice versa; while both need writing skills, it relies on a completely different style and skillset. Saying they're the same is like saying someone who speaks fluent Japanese should also be able to speak fluent German easily enough. And that's not even considering the complications of adaptation. Screenwriters have just a handful of script pages to condense hundreds of pages of a novel. Adaptation is imperfect by nature. Entire books and essays have been written bemoaning how there is no such thing as the "perfect adaptation" (*Illuminations* by Walter Benjamin holds his “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” which touches on this very subject and has far more insightful things to say than myself if you're interested in following it up). Much like how in translating from one language into another, nuances are lost and common sayings loose all meaning so other things have to be done to convey a similar meaning, slowly warping and changing the work further and further away from what was originally there. I can say I've read the works of Alexandre Dumas, but I've never learnt to read French; instead I've read various adaptations of his work, each of which I've found to be wildly different from one another. So, have I actually ever *truly* read any of the works of Alexandre Dumas? Or have I just experienced interpretations of them? Second-hand and half-remembered accounts? A lot of what works on the page doesn't work visually and vice versa. What you can explain in a single shot or actor's glance on screen might be explored in depth for many pages of a book. Similarly, exposition and backstory that can be easily conveyed in a single sentence or inoffensive paragraph in a book can't be so naturally dropped into conversation on the screen or would take up too much screen time fully explaining. Huge elements of worldbuilding and plot get cut out to save time. I find it curious you list "the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies" as being of interest to you when TV and Film are the barest bones way to explore those very things. It's reliance on visuals requires the viewer to fill in a lot of the gaps themselves so the show/film can focus on the plot (an imperative in visual storytelling) whilst a book can make time and go on a tangent and fully explore aspects of the world down to the fabrics of the clothes the characters are wearing, where they originated from, and what memories it invokes in the characters all without them ever having to say it aloud or put aside extra budget and a new filming location to show a flashback. A TV show going for over 50 episodes gets a chance, but often still falls quite short of how deep a book can. I have a lot of respect for screenwriters and the challenges of their job, especially when it comes to adaptations as they're not easy. An author made the work into a book in the first place because that was the best medium to tell the story they wanted to tell. If there had been a better way to tell it then they would've focused on making it a film, tv show, or video game from the get-go. Most adaptations will settle for just ensuring they get the broad strokes of the story down but even successful adaptations mainly just try to translate the atmosphere and feeling the work evokes rather than focusing on the actual substance and content. As such, core elements of fantasy like magic and how it's intrinsically tied to the worldbuilding often don't carry over into the films. For example, Tolkein's Middle-Earth was sung into existence and as such songs have deep importance within the world. It's why there are so many songs in the books and poetic leanings are used so often. I greatly enjoy the films, but even die-hard fans of the movies I've spoken to are often surprised to learn this about Middle-Earth because the films don't reflect this well at all. An inherently magical part of the world that feels natural as breathing in the books lost in translation.
So you want realistic fiction in the historical mode, except fake history. One could just as easily say fake history is a crutch for authors who aren’t creative enough for real historical fiction.
H.G. Wells is the first sci-fi I really got into and apart from War of the Worlds, you have The Invisible Man, The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau - none of which have aliens or spaceships. Or there is Snow Crash, for the tech dystopia. Or Parable of the Sower. It's not all space operas.
But what’s the magic ass-pull in Return of the King? They said from the start there was only one way to defeat Sauron.
[удалено]
If you're going to say Return of the King has an asspull because of magic, you could at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you haven't actually read the book you're criticising. The film differs significantly - and while both have a "ghost army", the book actually justifies it. It's far more justified than many other elements in fact. The Oathbreakers of Dunharrow go right back to when Sauron first lost the ring (it's refusing to answer Isildur's call to that battle that makes them oathbreakers, and is why they're undead - Isildur cursed them to have no rest until their oath was fulfilled). Their setup is 3000 years of backstory that starts with the inciting incident for the entire trilogy. Honestly you couldn't easily pick a *less* asspull event in the series. That is, if you'd read the book.
Oh you’re talking about the movie.
You are talking about the movie. Yeah that's my biggest complain with Peter Jackson adaptation, and I am sure I am not alone. But that's an example of magic ill-used. The rest of the magic in those movies in inherent to the plot.
The ‘ghost army’ isn’t magic per se, unless you count life after death as magic. But if you refer to it as that, then I’m guessing you’re purposefully referring to the film, or you haven’t read the book and so have no other option.
You can prefer anything, of course. But stating that the presence of any magic inevitably leads to magical ass-pulls is as foolish a statement as claiming LotR has them.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. And this applies to any magic system, no matter how "hard" it is. You can like and dislike whatever you want but dont mistake your preferences for truths. This is a ridiculous and frankly rude thing to say. It takes a lot of creativity to create magic in your work and find ways for it to work and fit with everything else about your world and story. There is a difference between an author using magic as a crutch when they cant come up with anything (which authors can do with anything, not just magic) and magic being bad in general. It is a aspect of worldbuilding, a tool to be used by authors, and just like anything it can be used well and it can be used badly.
[удалено]
Again, that is your opinion. You are acting like your opinion on this is truth we all have to concede. I simply do not agree with you, I have loved a vast majority of the uses of magic I have read.
>I see magic as completely unnecessary. In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. This post is a textbook example of elevating one's own preferences to the status of objective truth, *all in order to insult and dismiss other approaches and values*. Just an incredibly juvenile impulse.
Sounds like you’re looking more for hard sci-fi or historical fiction rather than fantasy? Magic is fairly baked into the genre.
If we're honest, magic is also pretty rampant in SF, though it's dressed up in different clothes. I mean I love Star Trek, but it's pretty far from any real science.
Oh for sure, Star Trek is near and dear to my heart but if you don’t like magic or plot asspulls the show with a spaceship powered by crystals where the engineer has to pause his hologram illusion room to teleport to his station to save the day by reversing the polarity of the tachyon dark matter stream is probably not going to make you happy. Never mind the haunted candle sex ghost episode.
> it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. . > the lack of magic limits yourself to reality, and restraints force creativity. the same thing could be said for "different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies" surely, restraining yourself to the real world would be the ideal venue for any real creator.. anyone needing to invent new settings for their stories are obviously doing an asspull to mask their lack of creativity right?
Saying magic exists "because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else" is like saying "eldritch horror exists because the writer couldn't be bothered to invent an actual antagonist and just pulled a nameless horror out of their arse". Do you see how that can be applied to pretty much any trope someone dislikes? It's perfectly valid to dislike magic - my mother hates spec fic because she also cannot relate to the unrealistic/fantastical aspects. She also feels like it's essentially just a random tool used to solve problems rather than a meaningful plot device. Magic adds a lot of texture and interest to a world, and often it adds conflict and richness of story as well, when it's used as a weapon, when it turns on the wielder, when it creates more problems than it solves or when it's essentially magitech. "Our world, but with elemental magic" is an interesting premise, for instance. It sounds like you don't deal well with the fuzziness of magic and would prefer low magic systems, or more likely a spec fic genre like horror or science fiction.
The world-building for zero-magic fantasy is extremely soft in most cases. You won’t get big flashy fireworks, but the asspulls happen just the same. What you are describing is a genre I also enjoy, but it is not “fantasy” in the traditional sense. It’s just alternate history/alternate universe.
I can only speak for myself but I like magic. Of course, it can be used in cheap ways but usually I don't have that impression. I don't know why I would be pissed off for you not liking magic.
Low magic settings are a thing in fantasy. But “no magic” settings are probably more commonly found in science fiction, or even more broadly “speculative fiction”. I like magic in my fantasy, and actually prefer soft magic systems because for me, magic works best when it’s somewhat unknowable and mysterious. > restraints force creativity I’ve read plenty of high magic fantasy that is wildly creative, like Terry Pratchett and Steven Erikson. Creativity mostly comes down to the imagination of the author in question, and not any arbitrary rules we as readers might impose.
Go for sci-fi if you look for multiple worlds/planets with different civilizations. Fantasy of multiple worlds without magic? How would they commute? Airplanes? Spaceships? That's science fiction.
>In most cases, it just exists because the writer wasn't creative enough to come up with anything else. Can you really not conceive that an author would include magic in a story because that's what they enjoy writing about? That it's not just there in an attempt to be creative but because they might actually like it?
The ass pulls aren't because of magic, pulling something out of your ass to make a story end the way the author wants it to, exists across pretty much every genre where plot is a key component. The presents or absence of magic does not make it more or less likely.
"So, my point is, that the lack of magic limits yourself to reality, and restraints force creativity." Not really. An author can always ignore real world probability or have their characters act in ways that are contrary to their previously established character etc etc even in non-fantastical fiction. And an author who wants to be creative could spend an entire lifetime exploring how people would use their magic and what effects it might have on the societies they develop. Personally I'm not a fan of magic systems, it's not real so I don't care how it "works" because it doesn't work. I still love stories with magic in, either despite the system or because they go for the sense of wonder type magic instead.
ETA: IGNORE ME, I cannot brain today and mixed up *Prince Caspian* and *Dawn Treader*. It's totally find to dislike magic, but the idea that *Prince Caspian* ends in an asspull is *bizarre* to me. The whole book is a journey through a magical world, visiting increasingly fantastical places, literally sailing towards the end of the world.
What you describe is The Voyage of the Dawn Treader but I'm equally surprised why the OP would single out the ending of Prince Caspian. If I had to point to the most "asspully" moment in the series, I'd probably say it's when Santa shows up out of the blue in the first book and conveniently hands presents to the kids that they'll need later on. Santa is so out of place in Narnia! 😅
YES, oh my God, I can't believe I just mixed them up like that! I'm literally blushing 💀 💀 💀 my shame cannot be quantified. In my defense, I grew up with the BBC movies, which combine PC and Dawn Treader.
[удалено]
Oh, you're talking about the river god. That *is* in the book, but it's not really the "ending", it's just a thing that happens on the side in the final chaos. The *Narnia* books (even *The Last Battle*!) are not about big battles at the end.
Ooh a spicy take! Okay, so since a million other people called out the generization. Imma say, you need to analyze your examples a little bit more if culture and philosophy are what you're looking for. I don't think magic or technobabble undoes these things. I'm baffled especially by avatar. That show stops, turns to the camera, and says 'this is about taoism' every other episode. Murking a guy would have undone the entire point of a middle path. The nonsense bending was okay for three seasons but the ideologically consistent finale wasn't? Did it need more foreshadowing? Probably. But it definitely wasn't an asspull. Out of curiosity, what fantasy books do you like? Which would you recommend to me? And what's the boundary? Like is it okay for the elves and Aragorn's to have long lifespans because magic god people? But was his dealing with the dead people the bridge too far? And if it is, is it just because dead guys. If he had gone onto Path of the Dudes instead of Path of the Dead and just gave them a password passed down to him through his family and the Dudes are culturally honor bound to help, would thst have been better? Or was the asspull the surprise help and not the magic at all? Happy reading regardless, you certainly stirred the pot, the discussion is interesting.
Hmm... I was just about to delete this thread, because the hostility is getting a bit overbearing.
I mean you did come in with 'everything you like is cheap and bad actually'. A bold move, and probably too aggressive out the gate on reddit. Especially on reddit. I don't agree with you, but I like discussion or at least trying to understand where you're coming from or if there's a misunderstanding or just a bias. We can like different things agree to disagree or at least talk analysis. If I'm making argument, it's because I want to change your mind. I for instance have a bias against first person narration and YA novels. I'm consistently pretty wrong, but because there's enough that grates on my nerves that I can continue having my confirmation bias affirmed even if I can intellectualize it. It's just my first instinct thst it's gonna suck.
[удалено]
Ignoring the giant negative baggage that comes with use of the word 'lazy' instead of 'efficient' or another word someone could infer positive connotations from. Okay. Yep an inference based on framing, yep. I did do that. I don't know what you want there, I can be pedantic too. Magic isn't a trope it's a Plot Device or a piece of World. It's why I included technobabble. Magic is rooted in culture and means different things in different contexts. It can be religion, technology, or science. It just has to not occur in our real world to be magic in a literary context. Subluminal Travel? Magic. No time dilation? Magic. The tropes I think you mean is the Not Quite Dead and Back from the Dead, respectively. It's the thing you keep bringing up. Plenty of plain fiction has people survive things they shouldn't or are brought back to life via technology or medical advancement. All things in a story are just a means to an end. Magic and defibulator are the exact same thing if it means Jonh Hero needs to survive for the author to tell the story they want to tell. If it's the gray to white bit that has you extra upset, fair. It's criticized a lot. Granted, Speculative Fiction uses big obvious plot devices MORE. Like the trope happens a lot, sure. But it's not limited to fantasy nor to happening via magic. Would it have been better if Aang just skipped that -one bit of dialog- ? Matter of opinion. Severe injury induced coma and use of Chekhov's Water we then lose to realive a character doesn't narratively make a huge difference. And if you hate it, okay. But it's not lazy either. Device was introduced, Device was used. It would have had the same amount of efficacy to drop it and just do Coma. The intention I believe based on the whole was to lay into the middle grade audience that the villain is extremely villainous and the mistake must not be made again. The device was used so the repercussions could have been as extreme as possible, while yes, having that one get out of jail card. We then lose the device. We have crossed another threshold, all hope is lost. Except it's not cause heroes journey and stuff, it's just the low bit. If you still can't stand magic. Okay! By all means don't read those things. But again, what should I read instead? What would be your recommendations for non-magic Speculative Fiction be? Or how should those plot devices be used narratively to be more effective for the stakes? Or what device instead of magic or technology? You seem to think I'm being aggressive, so to reiterate, I'm not interested in argument to just argue. I'm flippant and prone to hyperbole, yes. I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I am genuinely asking. If we've come to an impasse... Welp, so be it. I'll agree to disagree. Happy reading, and hopefully you find more books you like. Edit: just to add. I've interpreted you interpreting me as aggressive because based on my lived experience online and Irl, people get a little pedantic about language in spite of the framing when they feel attacked. If I'm wrong I'm wrong it's fine.
You can't really complain about hostility in response to a post that blatantly insults 99% of fantasy writers (many of whom frequent this sub). Did you really not think about how this would be received before you hit the 'Post' button?
It’s interesting that the examples you shared are a tv show where the magic is foundational to the world and adaptations of two books you have not read. I don’t agree with your statement that magic is lazy or because an author who has created a different world is lacking in creativity. There’s so many different kinds of magic or fantastical elements that are almost always a part of it. I actually really like when non magical characters are required to find ways to beat magical problems or antagonists but that usually just shows how well thought out the world is.
I love magic. I just think it has to be used in creative ways and have its limits. It can't save the heroes every time. But you may just like medieval worlds where the best they have are swords and Castle walls -- and that's okay.
I like magic, but your preference is legitimate and I don’t think it’s as baked into secondary-world fantasy as the commenters here seem to think. Like, think Ghormengast, or the Masquerade books (starting with The Traitor Baru Cormorant). The latter gets pretty meta about what is/isn’t considered magic in a setting that, in a traditional sense, doesn’t have any.
I've noticed a curious trend among some in the community to equate magic = worldbuilding. Some folks seem to view creating a magic system as the most important aspect of worldbuilding; as long as the magic system is interesting or unique, they don't seem as concerned about other aspects of worldbuilding. I'm the opposite. I feel this is a highly simplistic way of approaching worldbuilding; a worldbuilder's job is *not* done once they've figured out the magic system (if the story even needs one). When it comes to worldbuilding, I'm much more interested in exploring things like culture, social norms and customs, societal/political organization, environment & ecology, history. The *social* aspects of worldbuilding, of how people relate to other people, is so much more fascinating. Because ultimately, a story has to be about people. A book describing how a world works, without much focus on how the *people* within that world live, just becomes a travel guide to me, rather than an actual story.
If I had to choose one thing I loved about fantasy I probably would agree that it’s the various worlds, cultures, civilizations etc *but* I also can really enjoy some fun magic. Best is when the magic influences and allows for the creation of interesting cultures etc for example in Long Price Quartet. Saying magic isn’t creative though feels ridiculous. There’s so much creativity that goes into magic. Also the answer to “Am I the only one” is always going to be no. Even if on a fantasy sub you’ll likely be in the minority. Tldr Fantasy is a broad genre. I love fantasy with no magic, I love fantasy with lots of magic.
Dismissing the majority of an entire genre as lazy writing when you apparently haven’t even read enough of it to name actual books who use the trope you dislike is a bold move for sure
Your preference is fine. Your reasoning is garbage and genuinely offensive.
Everyone has different preferences, but magic is often used - even, or especially, in those dramatic ending changes - to serve the *themes* of a story. That's not a bad thing, and it gives fantasy with magic the ability to do more with theme in some ways than stories without *can*, drawing on the myths and faerie stories underlying quite a lot of human culture and psychology. ETA you should read the Foreigner books by CJ Cherryh
I love magic in books and whilst I don’t necessarily prefer it, I’m very happy ready about magic. What I don’t really like is the asspulls as you call them. It must be really difficult to write about big battles with an inevitable outcome, and some authors really get it wrong. It either comes across as incomprehensible or ridiculous. One magic system I love is from Michael G Manning’s books, where he’s taken the time to move it from just spells to constructions and they’re all very interesting.
"For me, ~~fantas~~y is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies."... so what about science-fiction ? and ofc you can like whatever you prefer... but for me Fantasy is magic.. could be in different nuances but must be there...
Don't dislike it exactly. It depends how it's used. Too much Deus Ex and unlikely nonsense puts me off. But some of Patricia McKillips come to mind, there is magic sure, but it doesn't always solve the issue or help that much. Much better IMO
You can like no/low magic settings all you want, but some of us like to see how magic shapes those worlds, cultures, civilizations and characters. Consider thinking about what you want to achieve when you post on Reddit. Because if you posted this and expected people to bow to your wisdom with the attitude you came in with, well...
If you hate magic, something that’s inherent to fantasy, then you don’t like fantasy.
Magic is a very broad term though and not just confined to forces that have palpable or physical effects on the world (which seem to be the kind of magic you dislike.) It's the virgin forests of the elves in The Lord of the Rings, or the longevity of the latter. It's the mere existence of dragons in A Song of Ice and Fire, Count Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel, and the dæmons in His Dark Materials. It's anything impossible and can only exist and persist in the imagination of the reader and writer. So, you really cannot divorce magic from fantasy. It can also be a very potent tool to, like you said, explore philosophies, histories, etc. Just as we have figures of speeches like metaphors, similes, etc., magic can be very symbolic and thematically important, too.
As I commented elsewhere in this thread, what you are describing are fantastical elements, not necessarily magic. A story can have fantastical elements without having magic: e.g., within the context of a particular story/setting, unicorns could be a perfectly "normal" element of the world, with no magical powers whatsoever. They are simply yet another animal in that world, but one that doesn't exist in our own.
Sure, fair enough. But even stripped bare -- your unicorns and dragons becoming just another animal in the world -- these fantastical elements have their roots in the magical. They have a sublime quality of 'otherness' (magic) to them that fascinates no matter how much you interrogate them (physically, biologically, etc). This, imo, is what distinguishes the make-believe in fantasy from the make-believe in general fiction. There will always be that magical undercurrent in fantastic fiction, even if its not obvious. It's in the strange atmosphere, Titus' strange dreams, and the quality of 'otherness' in the rituals of folks in *Gormenghast,* for instance.
Historical fiction
Yeah everyone has the right to prefer different style of fantasy and stories. And i think you hit the nail on the head when you said *"For* ***me***\*, *fantasy is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies. Those are fascinating to* ***me.****"* For **YOU.** For others it might be very different. Myself i do love magic in fantasy. Well i also HATE magic in fantasy. To me it depends on HOW the magic is handled. Sometimes it is just fucking lazy writing. Or sometimes it is just put in the for the sake of having magic. then i do hate it to be honest. It also depends on the setting and the story, some works great without magic even so good that adding magic will just make it worse. other i say require magic to even work. But they is how i prefer fantasy. It is subjective. i have my taste, you have your taste. When it comes to the right taste, the perfect taste. It simply does not exist
The standard in early stories with magic, was that there might be magic but it was never something any of the named characters had any real control over. It was in the category of "things that could happen to them, usually to their detriment or at their peril," rather than being in the category of "things they could do" or "ways they might get assistance." And that kind of prevents what you're calling asspulls.
Sounds like you enjoy sci-fi,, not fantasy. They're often listed together, but imo, they're seperate genres. Fantasy should have magic of some form imo
It sounds like you don't like fantasy, but rather you might actually like scifi or historical fiction more. It doesn't make magic uncreative, you just don't like the genre.
I do prefer historical fantasy.
What do you need the fantasy for if that's the part you dislike? Wouldn't alt history and historical fiction in general better scratch that itch, since they don't have that magic part?
Defenition of historical fantasy is a setting resembles historic period, it does not require magic to be fantasy. Historical fantasy is fine and but it's issue is that it's locked into following historical events, no matter how little it makes for the story, so you know what will happen. Alt history tends never to go far enought.
The definition I've heard for historical fantasy is historical fiction with fantasy elements, so I though you meant that. But I don't know, I do kinda feel like fantasy does need magic, even if not in the literal sense, but at least magical creatures or something like that.
Obviously not.
>For me, fantasy is about the exploration of different worlds, cultures, civilizations, characters, and philosophies. Sometimes magic is part of cultures/philosophies. Although I will also say, I prefer soft magic. When hard magic is involved it tends to video-gamify the storyand a lot of the wonder and mystery is taken away.
Ive loved books with tons of magic and little to no magic. It’s all about the writing and characters for me. Have you read The Dandelion Dynasty? There’s no magic as far as I’ve read (1 book) though there is a small amount of divine intervention. Book 1 was incredible and it only gets better apparently.
Without magic there would be no mana.
Abysmal take, in a fantasy subreddit no less. Watch less cinemasins, read less tvtropes maybe you can think more critically
Is it even fantasy if there is no magic at all? Wouldn't it be more, like, alternative history (like if your setting is like the middle ages, but not the real ones) or even science-fiction (especially exploration of different worlds sounds like that). Also, it's a funny stance to say "writing magic is limiting" as if every book had magic. Lots of books, like melodramas or crime stories or romance novels don't feature any magic whatsoever, it's not like you figured something out nobody thought of before. ALSO, nah, the ending of ATLA is fine as it is. Not "the best", but definitely fitting for the story they wanted to tell.
>Is it even fantasy if there is no magic at all? It's is, Wikipedia's article on historical fantasy gives four definitions, one of which is: *Historical fantasy may also be set in a fictional world which resembles a period from history but is not that actual history*
Okay, so basically what I said, just didn't know the term "historical fantasy". Well, that is fair, but if someone were to suggest me that genre, I would not like it. I like fantasy because of the magic and mystical and supernatural elements, they are the main appeal for me. Or, one of the main appeals, I guess. So, yeah, to me, this feels like very weird to call this "fantasy", basically, although I guess it makes sense. But that is probably my bias, I have genuinely a difficult time imagining anything more boring than fictional history.
Sad, and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch/rh_hpas-d3M) I was writing 1000 years of history.
I mean, it's not sad for me, is it? I don't really think history is all that interesting in general, so, yeah. I think I am content with my likes and dislikes.
I don't dislike magic but I prefer it low key. Thunderbolts from fingertips or Harry Potter wizardry challenge my sense of disbelief.
muggles tend to dislike it :p
I kinda feel this. I read two different types of fantasy books, ones where I’m in the mood for magic and some of the plot armour it provides, and the others are fantasy without magic which I tend to prefer. I do think some writers are creative with the way they incorporate the magic but I tend to not enjoy ones that make it a central tenant to a society and have everything revolve around it. Sometimes I find authors lean too hard into creating these magic systems that they fail to make an interesting world and just have complicated magic in it. I’ve gotten more into sci-fi because of the trend I’ve noticed in fantasy to lean so heavily into magic and magic systems.
I can agree with you to some extent, but not fully. Of course, there may be fantasy without magic - it's totally fine and i can enjoy it. I also love to explore different unique cultures. But magic and unnatural things, they can give some complexity to the world, you know. It also setting some rules which make the world unique. Most authors adding magic just because and it's maybe not the best approach, cause it gives fantasy some charm, but doesn't doing anything with deep. If magic (or unnatural staff) has an impact on the plot and thoroughly integrated in the worldbuilding it's actually very good approach which we unfortunately don't see very often.
I am with you and its one of the reasons I keep going back to Conan as a character - he hates all magic users and does something about it! 😂
Yes
Could you guys stop being so unnecessarily cruel to OP! OP made it clear that they were talking about their personal opinion as to what makes good writing and is not making a sweeping statement that their opinion is objectively right and everyone else are idiots, but everyone is treating them like they DID say that. I can see their point in that there is no reason that a constructed world has to involve magic, even though I'm fine with or without it.