Yeah. Good questions, ones I keep asking myself, but I haven't worked it out yet :)
Firstly, I think "not having holes" isn't just about magic. In something like Sharpe, you can see him educating the reader about napoleonic tactics, when cavalry beat infantry, when infantry can form square and hold them off, when artillery and cavalry are a killer combination, etc. And most of the time it's so seamless you don't _notice_, but occasionally the seams show and he says something is impossible and you think "that's because it's going to be subverted in the next page".
But it's particularly evident in magic because the author has to invent a whole system from scratch, make it seem natural, and usually, have something dramatic happen in it later on without it seeming contrived...
I think well-built magic systems are often ones we don't notice, where they fit into the plot so well we don't even think to say "hang on, what if"...
And now I think about it, I'm not sure if having a magic system with specific rules is actually related to that. Obviously if it's REALLY specific, like, you have a gizmo that has clearly-specified physical effects, then it's automatically possible for the reader to extrapolate what's possible -- but it's equally possible to screw it up in that case by the author not making the obvious extrapolations. And conversely, even if your magic system is numinous and magical, it can be clearly specified in terms of "we've never tried this, we just have to ask the spirits and hope, but the reader has a clear idea if this is LIKELY to work or not".
Can you have a magic system which is both extrapolat-able and numinous? I'm not sure -- I'd LIKE to think so, but I think a lot of the numinous comes from discovery and mystery, so it's possible only by balancing on the edge -- usually too much understanding undermines the magical-ness, even though I like both. Examples that spring to mind are Name of the Wind, which rather cheats by having a mechanistic magic system, and beyond that, a magical magic system...
no subject
Date: 2015-03-17 10:37 pm (UTC)Firstly, I think "not having holes" isn't just about magic. In something like Sharpe, you can see him educating the reader about napoleonic tactics, when cavalry beat infantry, when infantry can form square and hold them off, when artillery and cavalry are a killer combination, etc. And most of the time it's so seamless you don't _notice_, but occasionally the seams show and he says something is impossible and you think "that's because it's going to be subverted in the next page".
But it's particularly evident in magic because the author has to invent a whole system from scratch, make it seem natural, and usually, have something dramatic happen in it later on without it seeming contrived...
I think well-built magic systems are often ones we don't notice, where they fit into the plot so well we don't even think to say "hang on, what if"...
And now I think about it, I'm not sure if having a magic system with specific rules is actually related to that. Obviously if it's REALLY specific, like, you have a gizmo that has clearly-specified physical effects, then it's automatically possible for the reader to extrapolate what's possible -- but it's equally possible to screw it up in that case by the author not making the obvious extrapolations. And conversely, even if your magic system is numinous and magical, it can be clearly specified in terms of "we've never tried this, we just have to ask the spirits and hope, but the reader has a clear idea if this is LIKELY to work or not".
Can you have a magic system which is both extrapolat-able and numinous? I'm not sure -- I'd LIKE to think so, but I think a lot of the numinous comes from discovery and mystery, so it's possible only by balancing on the edge -- usually too much understanding undermines the magical-ness, even though I like both. Examples that spring to mind are Name of the Wind, which rather cheats by having a mechanistic magic system, and beyond that, a magical magic system...