[Tehol the Only]

Hello Forum dwellers
Lurking around in forums and review sites i've been reading loads of different opinions about the series in all of its aspects ranging from "totally awesome" to "total s**t" and an even wider array of different criticisms; i think many of those are somehow legit (let's face it, SE is not for everyone) while others are completely absurd (heard people complaining about the fact that the suffix -stan in the real world is used to name a nation, not a city). One of the most frequent accustions though is that "SE can't create a good magical system" and i really can't understand why since i find it way more plausible than many others.
The most common complain probably regards the lack of explanation by the author or, better, "how does he/she do all that stuff?". The preliminary explanation (later expanded) given in Gotm is that some people are born "closer" to a warren and are thus sensitive to its "fluctuations", and those who are particularly "attuned" are even able to rend its fabric so that "power"

Spoiler

Actually K'rul's blood

leaks out and can be given shape. How? by will. Somehow most fantasy readers rail at that. Somehow the fact that simple will can achieve something is not acceptable in a fantasy environment. Well...let's say in your (many) wanderings you meet a race of sentient rocks, what would you answer were they to ask you (in Rockysh language of course) how do you move your arms? or your legs? "By will" probably. The thruth is way more complex than that of course as you had to struggle for years when you were a little child to learn how to coordinate all those possible movements, but how to explain that to someone who can't move at all? Same goes for "feeling a warren": think of it as an additional sense... how would you explain how it is to see to someone who is blind from birth? probably through a series of clumsy metaphors, none of wich really would describe the truth of things(see Beak's candles in RG).
Probably the average fantasy reader would find himself more at ease with something more mechanic as the use of spells or words of power, but in my opinion such devices wouldn't really fit in erikson's universe. The warrens, especially the elder ones, are the expression of wild and natural forces and forcing the magic user to something artificious as saying particular words to use their power would sound stilted. As if a giant, pulsating mass of fire-flavoured elder god's empowered blood cares a whit if you say "heat my sandwich" in some lost tiste dialect.
Really what's the problem with this system?
Sorry, i suck at explaining myself and there are probably tons of grammar errors.
Please tell me your opinion about SE magic system and the post, i welcome any kind of feedback.

[Use Of Weapons]

I think there's a current trend in epic fantasy for magic systems with rules and explicit limits derived from those rules. SE's magic systems (all of them, so far as I can tell) go against this model and hark back to older magic systems in epic fantasy predating the current trend. IMO this explains many of the comments attacking SE's magic system.

[Tehol the Only]

UseOfWeapons, on 13 March 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

I think there's a current trend in epic fantasy for magic systems with rules and explicit limits derived from those rules.

indeed! and some rules are so overused to become cliches... SE managed to limit the power of his mages while keeping the distance from such stereotypes.
Also i find hilarious that the same peoples complaining about the complexity of malazan also complain about the (brilliant IMO) simplicity of his magic.

[worry]

Since you said the magic word...

I'd agree with UoW for sure. Mistborn for example (which I mostly enjoyed) had such a pre-occupation with its magic system that it got kind of ridiculous to me how much time was spent wallowing in it. But I could see that very fact being highly seductive to a certain kind of geek, who gets off on structure and certainty and knowing every detail. I imagine the more anal retentive you are, the less likely SE's system would appeal to you. Which isn't to say it doesn't have rules or it doesn't make sense, cuz it certainly does, but part of making sense of it is leaving room for surprises.

[Studlock]

SE magic actually feels like magic, it`s dangerous and unknowable (if that`s word) by its very nature. I have no problem with rule heavy magics, but sometimes it starts to feel like science and more mundane. I can see the problem arising that is magic doesn`t have set rules it can become a DEM but I think SE handled his very well.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 13 March 2012 - 09:12 PM

[Tehol the Only]

thanks a lot for the answers, i found so many negative comments about the warrens around the internet i almost thought to be the only one to actually like them :/

This post has been edited by Shi'Gal: 13 March 2012 - 11:11 PM

[Zenstrive]

I have been reading that other fantasy series where magics are actually so wild it can take over the users. It can be shaped to whatever the user's wish, but mostly burst of energies. The series? Shannara.

[D'iversify]

Studlock, on 13 March 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

SE magic actually feels like magic, it`s dangerous and unknowable (if that`s word) by its very nature. I have no problem with rule heavy magics, but sometimes it starts to feel like science and more mundane. I can see the problem arising that is magic doesn`t have set rules it can become a DEM but I think SE handled his very well.

Given that most scientific practice (as opposed to theory) is most definitely not rule driven but more a matter of tinkering with existing systems (which are commonly models with no clear one-to-one basis with reality, indeed, are often 'fictitious'), Erikson's magic system is actually closer to such creative experimental practices. When magic is treated as highly amorphous and plastic AND simultaneously heavily rule-driven, I find such systems unconvincing. You cannot have an interesting system if it plays out like a children's chemistry demonstration.

[Tehol the Only]

D, on 15 March 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Given that most scientific practice (as opposed to theory) is most definitely not rule driven but more a matter of tinkering with existing systems (which are commonly models with no clear one-to-one basis with reality, indeed, are often 'fictitious'), Erikson's magic system is actually closer to such creative experimental practices. When magic is treated as highly amorphous and plastic AND simultaneously heavily rule-driven, I find such systems unconvincing. You cannot have an interesting system if it plays out like a children's chemistry demonstration.

Being a chemist i can only bow to this

[Black Winged Lord]

I can be pretty anal at times, even a bit OCD when I feel like it, so one of the first things in series I look at is their magic systems (and to a lesser degree the way their societies function). If it doesn't seem logical to me, or I can't quite follow the rules, it often makes finishing the books a bit of a chore.

With SE I was fascinated by the ideas behind the warrens, how they fitted together both physically and storywise, how the power was drawn, pretty much everything about them. I mean its a fairly chaotic mess that just seemed to get larger and muddier as the books continued. But I don't think that I ever had too many problems with it as such, I had trust in SE by that stage.
Although I still don't, and probably never will understand all the vagaries, its sort of an oxymoron of complexity/simpleness thats one of the best I've read.

[Sinisdar Toste]

brandon sanderson is an interesting example, as he is the 'magic-system' guy apparently. i've read all his work, and his magic systems are mainly what attract me to it. there is a certain appeal to being able to nail everything down for the most part, but i still prefer the mystery and sheer other-world charm of the warrens and their practitioners. thankfully brandon is not completely devoid of these qualities in his storytelling, even if he personally has very specific rules for his magic.