Some Fantasy Standards

[seekmore]

He can't do ANYTHING, there are still limits regarding expended energy.
Listening to the book makes it harder, but I am still fairly certain that you contradicted yourself.  Either there are 2 languages, and in which case Eragon did his ballad in the elvish one, or there is just the one language that elves speak which is the ancient language and it can be used to create fiction.

No, it's made clear that Eragon wrote his ballad in the Ancient Language. Oromis says he should not have been able to do so, and Eragon says he was because he believes it to be true with all his heart(or some such).

The Elves didn't come up with the Ancient Language, some other race did. The Grey Ones, or something.

I still say there's the intent to deceive which it blocks you from acting on, not necessarily telling untruths.

But we are given no explanation for it.

And Oromis wouldn't have taught Brom the secrets if Brom didn't finish the training (Which Brom didn't) because Oromis says they only taught the unspoken spell thing to students who had mastered every bit of magic.  Which Brom hadn't.

Why didn't Brom finish training? There's no reason for him not to have. He and Morzan trained together.

Morzan apparently did, or was he an untrained apprentice-type dragonrider who somehow managed to kill a bunch of other fully-trained Dragonriders?

Another thing that bothers me:

We are told that casting magic without the Ancient language is incredibly dangerous and that the Elves are taught not to do so unless it is absolutely necessary.

Yet the Queen non-verbally magicks up some flowers when Eragon meets her. And Vanil uses magic non-verbally in ever one of his duels with Eragon.


And another thing: Eragon's swordsmanship. In less than a year Eragon has gone from being a farmboy to being able to best a warrior with literally over a thousand years more practice than he.

[Aludra]

I'm not discussing this any further in this thread because I was only arguing about the magic thing. If you want to start an Inheritance hate thread, feel free, but I don't think this is the right thread for it.

Regardless, the magic part is defined even if some of the other details are less clear to you.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Have you read a good fantasy series where magic works where there were no rules?

Series, no. Novels ? Lots.

Magic that works symbolically in the magic-realism direction is not rational. (See Desolation Road.)

Magic that is enigmatic and Otherworldy is not rational. (See Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, among many others, which has this alongside rational magic.)

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

The only series I've read where there wasn;t a fairly clearly defined system of magic was the Inheritance Cycle.....and that is hardly an example of good fantasy.

Ding a magic system badly is not the same as doing non-systemic magic well.  A magic system is not the only way to make magic work.

[seekmore]

..

[belial.1980]

Have you read a good fantasy series where magic works where there were no rules?

The only series I've read where there wasn;t a fairly clearly defined system of magic was the Inheritance Cycle.....and that is hardly an example of good fantasy.

It might sound like semantics but I there're two different things being discussed right here. I think almost every book I've read has ascribed some kind of set rules to magic. There are always postulates to define the nature of magic, if nothing else.

The Wizard of Earthsea is one example that comes to mind. I think it's an excellent series myself. Le Guin establishes the fact that everything has a "true name" and that can be changed or manipulated through the power of this true name. She also tells the reader that it's a bad idea to do so unnecessarily. However I would argue that she doesn't use a rigid "system."

Lord of The Rings--maybe you've heard of it?--is a fairly popular series that's enjoyed some moderate success and influence. It really doesn't use any kind of system that I can define.

I liked the Elric series too. It's been awhile but I can't recall Moorcock setting any kind of intricate system or rules set for his magic.

When i heard the term "magic system" I think of something like the Mistborn series where the rules of allomancy are very rigid, with a set number of effects possible for any user of the craft.

[seekmore]

Regardless, the magic part is defined even if some of the other details are less clear to you.

I don't know how far you are Aludra, so I'm going to spoiler all of what I am about to say, as it contains information from Brisingr.

(click to show/hide)

In the battle at the end of Brisingr, Eragon tells Murtagh that the solution to his problem is to change his True Name. That, by changing his True Name, Galbatorix can no longer keep hold of whatever magic that was cast on him and that he will be free. This was faintly alluded to the sentence he decided upon for Sloan.

Now, earlier in the books, Arya speaks of the war where Galbatorix and the Forsworn kill the other Dragonriders. During this story, she speaks of the Dragons of the Forsworn and why they are never mentioned by name. The story goes that when the treachery of the Dragons(and their Riders) was discovered, the other Dragons banded together and cast a spell over the Dragons. Over time the spell erased the True Name of the Dragons. Small details of their personalities vanished and over time they wet mad and eventually mindless. In addition, their Names vanished from memory. No one can say their names, even those that are written down. They can't be read. They can be copied, but only if you go one character at a time.

Now, a True Name consists of everything you are at present. However, they spell erased parts of their name. This means their Names have changed. If your name changes, any spell cast upon you using your True Name stops, because that person(as per their True Name) no longer exists. This means the second any part of the Forsworn Dragons True Names was erased, the spell should stop working.

Using your name as an example:

Let's say Aludra represents everything you are as a person. It represents your very existence. Using magic, I cast a spell to erase your Name. Let's say the first thing I erase the 'A'. This represents your love of Jim Butcher, and strawberry pop tarts and your love of the scent of freshly cut grass and how you defend the things you love with every weapon at your disposal. I've just erased all of that, and fundamentally changed you as a person. You are now Ludra, and the person known as Aludra no longer exists. The spell I originally cast, though, named Aludra as its target, but that person no longer exists, so that spell evaporates like it was never cast. This means your True Name is no longer being erased.

Which is true? The facts we are given on the matter go one way, but the two situations directly contradict one another.

Another problem is power levels:

Again in Brisingr,

(click to show/hide)

in one morning(roughly six hours), Eragon cures cancer(despite not knowing anything about the human body, or medicine, or how tumors work). He partially erases a powerful spell he put on Elva. Oh, and he also pulls millions of tiny individual atoms of gold out of the soil to give himself three large-sized spheres of pure gold. This doesn't wind him in the slightest, nor does he have to draw on any of the secret reservoirs of power he has.

On the other hand, again, in the battle at the end of Brisingr, thirteen Elves, some of them hundreds or thousands of years his senior, are utterly exhausted after healing one relatively minor wound to Saphira. And to forestall the argument, these are the best mages the Elves have to offer.

[Aludra]

Not read Bsringer yet, so thaks for the spoiler tags.  Sorry I can't carry the conversation further, but I stand by my point that there are limits to the magic used in the Inheritance cycle.

If there weren't limits, Eragon wouldn't have cursed the child, and would have blessed her like he had intended.

[Sebastian]

Generally speaking, limitations on spellcasters is a good idea. Either in the sense that they need supplies, knows a limited number of fixed spells, can output a limited amount of energy or is likely to draw unfavourable attention from the opposition or similar.

If your charachters are limited, they can be challenged which tends to be good for the story. At least if you're aiming for tension, suspense and the like.
If your target is humor, simple unintended consequences will often do the trick and limitations are less necessary.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Lord of The Rings--maybe you've heard of it?--is a fairly popular series that's enjoyed some moderate success and influence. It really doesn't use any kind of system that I can define.

Lord of the Rings "magic" is essentially divine intervention, though.

[Aludra]

If your target is humor, simple unintended consequences will often do the trick and limitations are less necessary.

Ebenezum. 

And the wizards in the Drizzt books.

Love those crazy spellcasters

[ballplayer72]

Ebenezum. 

And the wizards in the Drizzt books.

Love those crazy spellcasters

D and D's magic system is highly catalouged and rule based.

[Gruud]

And WotC will sue your pants off if you get even close to using it, I bet.

[seekmore]

And WotC will sue your pants off if you get even close to using it, I bet.

Nah, just pitch it to them as a novel. They do publish books.

[Sebastian]

Lord of the Rings "magic" is essentially divine intervention, though.

I have only a vague feeling for what the Japanese concept of "Kami" means, but when I read a short description it seemed very familiar to Lord of the Rings