First of all your book is really awesome I love the blend of classic fantasy and this steampunkish style and especially the realisticness of the worldbuilding and how the world works, but what I always wandered while reading your book is: How the hell does gravity in that world work? I pictured it as a big cylinder with connected portals on top and bottom but why do ppl stick to the main continent but when they fall of they just fall down towards the portal. Just a bit I wondered. Brilliant writing btw.
Well the continents don't fall, they are held up by internal darkstone deposits. There's a massive slab that runs the length of the main continent called the darkstone mantle. Gravity in the universe comes from a permanent downward geodesic curve in space time ^_^
Lewis knew what was up. narnia was amazing, and when you look into it, it had a surprisingly hard magic system for something written so long ago when people didnt really care about that kind of thing [eg; LOTR]
"Sure, mate, suuuure. Tell me more about it" Philip Pullman as he writes His Dark Materials, the antithesis of everything Lewis stood for, a supposedly "book for children" with a deep, well constructed, anti-religion and anti-authoritarism message that can only be fully appreciated by adults. Oxford, 1994, colorized
I feel the need to put down something as "made for children" incredibly insulting to both interests and to children. Children are so much smarter then they get credit for. Plus an adult can enjoy stories aimed at kids as long as that story is still well made. Wall-E is undoubtedly a movie aimed for children; but that doesn't mean any adult should feel ashamed for liking it
I actually find this also very insulting to the parents which put up the money to buy the books for their children. If this was for me, I can expect a certain quality in this book, but because it's for my child, I suddenly can't expect the same quality? For the same amount of money the writers can be lazy?
If you refer to the FTC/COPPA case, they have a "mixed audience" passage in the law: -eg. 'FTC 16 CFR Section 312.2 - Definitions'. it's hard to find, but after a longer read after (10)(vii) it's the section. It refer to paragraph (1), and has sub-section (i) and (ii): www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/312.2 -or 'FTC FAQ G. GENERAL AUDIENCE, TEEN, AND MIXED-AUDIENCE SITES OR SERVICES': www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#General%20Audience It's YT/Google, which spread false information here, they don't want to update their system. Edit: E-mail Addresses
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." --Darth Vader, Star Wars.
Oh, there’s an even more disingenuous argument than the “made for children” one, the “bruh, it’s fictional, why do you care how it works”. I miss it when consistency and cohesive rules were the norms for fictional universes. Suspension of disbelief doesn’t mean “there are no rules, it’s fiction and magic, who cares”.
That applies to anything "BRO ITS JUST A GAME/MOVIE/SHOW IT"S NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY" is one of the most annoying "arguments" ever devised by humankind
I think yesterday, bc 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago that was mostly only valid for the hard sci-fi 'genre', it's just nowadays that people are crazy for BranSan's laws
Steak Saignant roughly before post-modernism took over in force in artistic and critical circles, death of the author became the normative thinking pattern and themes and meta-textual interpretations of the work became more valid and important than the work itself. Literary (and to a wider extent artistic) history has phases, and the modern infatuation with not having consistent rules is just that: modern. This doesn’t mean the past doesn’t have inconsistent works, bad writers are eternal. The difference is that if you go back two maybe three decades and shown somebody the script for TLJ, nobody would defend it because “muh themes are so deep” and nobody would praise Ruin for his work directing that catastrophe. That’s what I’m talking about.
>I miss it when consistency and cohesive rules were the norms for fictional universes. Crafting complex fictional systems is actually a relatively new thing (And I suspect that the popularity of DnD helped with making it more common). Few authors bothered with maintaining consistency.
Draconis The Wyvern - the OC is saying that the problem is not soft magic itself, but when soft magic “is used as deus ex machina and to explain away events”. You can write soft magic without using it as deus ex machina, and you can write deus ex machina without soft magic (or without any magic at all). “Oh, look, someone left this chainsaw here just as I need to get through this door.” No magic, plenty of deus ex machina. It is a question of good vs. bad writing.
Hello Future Me hi I’m a big fan; can you please do some videos including more science in some series like eragon or keeper of the lost cities? (Obviously you don’t have to, I and probably some others would appreciate it)
OMG seeing Tim commenting on Shadiversity is like seeing one of these amazing crossovers where your favorite characters meet each other, and all you can do is stare like "WOW" :)
Okay. So. Inconsistency in the LOTR movies I'll give you, there isn't an explanation. It's an assumption that people will accept it and move on. Books though: it is strongly established by Tolkien that there are different classifications of divine beings, Gandalf being among an order of them, bound to human form so as to be limited in their ability to counter Sauron in their full might (being themselves the same species as Sauron and the Balrog). Gandalfs order is restricted by how they are allowed (by the higher order, the valar, and by their one creator, eru) to use their "magic". Gandalf can use his full might on the Balrog as it is essentially the same as him, although heavily corrupted. He cant use it on the Witch king because the witch king is Human. HIS power is granted by Sauron, who is unrestricted in his ability to use and share his power through the rings of power. Granted, there is still so much left unsaid by Tolkien even in the depths of the lore about what exactly these angelic spirits, known as the Maiar and Valar, are capable of, but coming from the influences of christianity, Celtic, Norse and Greco-Roman mythology that he was inspired by, these characters are completely above the capability of our protagonists (Bilbo and Frodo) to comprehend the power of in the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. It is only in the Silmarillion, whether protagonists are mainly elves who have grown up around these angelic spirits that we learn even the slightest bit of information about their true nature, but, as lower species, the elves still do not truly comprehend them, so we the reader do not get to understand fully. Unfinished tales, and the appendices give some more information, but there are still unexplainable inconsistencies in Tolkien's world that I will agree with you on. I'd be happy to talk about this more for the sake of clarity, as you can probably tell I'm just as interested in this subject as you. Once again, a great video, and interesting clarification of the divide between Soft and Hard magic systems.
Also if you have read some of the unfinished tales Gandalf was and to other wizards (I cant spell their name) were given the form of humans so they cannot become a tyrant similar to saroun
Also from the books, I always understood that the whole concept of magic is a force than cannot be mastered by the wizard and using it is both dangerous and very exhausting. Furthermore Power in thr LOTR universe is always portrayd as a responsibility and a burden, since Power corrupts. Gandalf as well as Galadriel who are the two most powerful characters except for Sauron himself (and likely Tom Bombadil) both do not dare touching the ring, because the ring will use their power to allure and corrupt them with more power. I believe that for the same reasons Gandalf does not or maybe cannot use his magic at will. Since it is not his magic but a power that he can use, but also knows that it is better to use it as rarely as possible. Furthermore Magic is often also connected to Will power and will power can be exhausted. Thus I assume that Gandalf was already to exhausted and battle worn when he met the Witch king to use his magic.
@@JH-zs3bs I wouldn't really call Tom Bombadil powerful in the way that Sauron was powerful. More that he was disconnected, immune, to the other powers in the world, that they couldn't be affected by them.
@@boltactionartist9475 "Gandalf was and to other wizards (I cant spell their name)" Sauroman, Radagast, and the two blue ones that as far as I know was never named.
@@ano_nym the blue were named though I don’t remember them but I know there in the unfinished tales book, where you can also see how sauroman came to snake the hobbits pipe weed. It’s actually one of my favorite stories as he has a whole argument with Gandolf about it
To over-generalize my understanding, I would explain the magic spectrum thusly: Soft Magic: magic as a whole can do anything until a rule says it can't. Hard Magic: magic as a whole can't do anything unless a rule says it can. Any magic system can fall anywhere on the scale between these two extremes, and even different parts of the same magic system can vary on how hard or soft they are. How'd I do, teacher?
To me, the concepts of hard magic works like enhanced physics, while soft magic is the enhancing of the mind. And the two does not conflict each other.
THAT is a great definition for me. While watching the video I kept wondering where the magic of D&D/Pathfinder would fall, because considering it's huge plethora of spells, caster classes and custom magic rules, I started to wonder if it was a *soft* magic system, since conceivably magic could do *anything* in a D&D/Pathfinder setting. But with this summary it becomes a bit more clear: yes, conceivably it could do anything, but only *if* a rule says it can. So, i *is* a hard system (and now I'm wondering if a soft system in a Pen&Paper RPG is at all possible. *Mage: The Ascension* might be the closest candidate I can think of...)
@@dmschoice2571 Magic in D&D is a soft magic system. There are 2 flaws in your idea of "Magic can't do anything unless a rule says it can" when it comes to D&D. First : When talking about rules for magic systems, in this context we're talking about narrative/world rules, not game rules. For example there are no clear narrative reasons given for why some spells require verbal/somatic/material components and others don't. But there are clear game rules (defined by what your GM will allow) Second : Both in game rules as well as narrative/world rules, it is possible to add rules or "break" previously set ones with the addition of spells or class features. Example that applies to both of these. Let's take the spell "Silent image". A level 1 spell that requires a verbal, somatic and material component. It also requires a spellslot to cast. All of these are game rules and not explained by narrative. But even if they were, it shows a problem because there is such a thing as the warlock invocation "Misty Visions". Which allows to you cast the same spell at will (without expending a spell slot), and without the material component. And there is no explanation given. And you can homebrew new spells and invications to make and break all these rules whenever you want. Or to put it simply : Magic as a whole can do anything until a GM says you can't.
Well mostly. I mean we understand what it does, how it will affect things, etc... How it's created and how it propagates are basically big old blanks though.
Big part of soft magic is the fact that you as a reader don't know how it works, yet it has defined rules in the universe. To mention Lord of the Rings, several times it is explained that what Hobbits perceive as magic is regular stuff for Elves or Gandalf. What I'm trying to say is that there might be hard rules for magic system in the fictional universe, but if the character that you follow doesn't understand them, they don't need to be explained to you either.
Exactly. Third person limited, as Shad explained. The Hobbit and LoTR was written from the point of view of the Hobbits. Silmarillion though was written in omniscient, needing to explain stuff that Hobbits did not understand.
Here's a thought. The stronger the spell in soft magic, the more rules apply to the magic being used. The more "resources" that are used to create powerful spells, the more rules apply to allow those "resources" to coexist together. This would effectively limit soft magic systems. The more powerful the magic becomes, the more the magic morphs into a hard magic system.
The time turner from Harry Potter is a perfect example of this. The time turner is a "spell" that can literally turn back time, but it requires a special charm (the turner itself), it requires precise calculations to go back in time, and they fully establish you need special approval from the government to even own one.
I think most soft magic systems also limit magic by tying many things to the caster's "strength" in whatever fuels the magic. For example: In Harry Potter, not every witch or wizard can cast a patronus, apparate, or kill with avada kedavra. In the Wheel of Time, not everyone who can channel can weave / spin gateways or balefire, nor can they all create identical effects with the same weaves.
Magic in LOTR isn’t contradictory so much as ephemeral. All of the POV characters can’t do magic and thus its limitations are confusing and unclear to them. This is not the same thing as the magic system being contradictory, it’s merely the manifestation of ignorance on the part of the observer.
@@tiagodarkpeasant Gandalf is forbidden to use his powers directly like that unless in extreme circumstances like the Balrog. His job was mainly to guide Middle Earth inhabitants to fight themselves. True that the movies don't explain this.
@@LOTRFAN33 It still kinda does explain it though. After killing the Balrog, it's explained how he traveled through space and time, and it was decided by the higher powers that his task was not yet done, so he was sent back to fulfill his purpose on Middle-Earth. Granted it doesn't say with direct words "Gandalf is a demigod sent to Earth to establish balance", but it's a case of show-don't-tell, where his general actions should indicate that he is not there to win the battles people have, but rather guide them towards doing it themselves. He doesn't intervene directly in any outcome, he just carves a path that people can chose to follow or not. I think with the Witch King battle in Minas Tirith, the extended version has a lot more visual exposition in regard to the magic powers used. If I remember correctly, the Witch King actually destroys Gandalf's staff, proving that Gandalf is not allowed to use magic powerful enough to single-handedly overcome that of Sauron.
I mean as for Gandalf; His nature as one of the Istari, and his task being to guide, rather than to step in and try to solo Sauron in an epic 1v1, does explain why he so rarely uses the full scope of his power.
Pretty clear he's just talking about the LoTR films here; as I recall, in the books Gandalf does very little overtly supernatural (he lights a few fires, etc). Most of the magical powers in the books are just alluded to.
Gandalf has one of the three rings of power given to elves (elrond has water, galadriel has light, gandalf received fire from cirdian). Using the rings of power too excesively (even by the elfs or maiar) can corrupt souls (that is why Gandalf is too afraid to touch the One Ring). This is not a plot hole as far as Middle Earth is concerned, but I agree it wasn't explicitly stated in the movies or books.
Obviously the reason why Gandalf wasn't always casting the same magic was because he was trying to conserve his spell slots. Having to long rest constantly to get your slots back is a pain.
Seeing this video really made me wonder how big of an impact LotR had on magic in D&D. While they're not the same (based on some other comments I've read here), they both achieve a system where magic is severly limited. Take this in contrast to games like Skyrim where magic is plentyfull.
That video of his in particular was an oddly defensive one. It seemed clear to me he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about hard magic systems as talked about by people who listened to Sanderson. I feel he should have just talked about Sanderson's ideas directly rather than the unfocused reach around the video ended up being. I normally like his stuff.
Sooo I read you book, it wasnt only great from the perspective of a hardmagic enthusiast like me, but im also impressed how extremly well written the ending was , since new authors often struggle with getting that right in a way were you dont loose interest before nor feel unsasisfied at the last page
The magic is pretty well explained, instead. You explore what it can do along the character, and even in the end, with the wonderful duel, it didn't break anything, it's just something none ever thought before. You have no rules defined from above, instead you get to explore them as you go.
This is soft magic in a nutshell. "He does things because... Magic!" where as hard magic system goes "he cannot do that because thats not how this magic works".
The magic in Lord of the Rings is more established in the Silmariliion particularly in respect to the wizard's power. They were given rules they had to follow before they were sent to the earth. We don't know what all the rules are but Gandalf isn't allowed to do everything he is capable of doing.
Tolkien never really defined magic in Middle-earth. Gandalf is basically an angel, his power is a part of him. Galadriel tell's Frodo and Sam that the power of the Rings is magic, but the power of the elves isn't. Some of the Ringwraiths are described as being "sorcerers", but we're never told exactly what they're capable of doing.
@@TRivan-kx2bi Rattling bones and pronouncing hollow curses, most likely. At least in terms of effectiveness for the last group. Maybe combined with a touch of genuine foresight if you're being generous.
I like how Tolkien, though using a soft magic system, is clear on the relative power of various practitioners. I.E. Gandalf clearly can't face Saruman initially. Sauron would have reason to fear Aragorn if he had taken the ring, but not Frodo. Even if you don't get what's going on, you have some fair answers to what if questions.
Lord of the Rings has a soft magic system, because it is told from the perspective of regular people; small regular people with big feet, but regular people nontheless. "Magic" is just a label they put on things they don't understand. There are a few sections where it is told from Gandalf's point of view, but he is speaking to Frodo and chooses words he knows Frodo can understand. His story was probably worded differently when he told it to Elrond. Was Gandalf the point of view character, it would be a hard magic system.
@@schwarzerritter5724 That is a wonderful way of describing Tolkien's magic. I believe this can also be seen when Sam asks to see some "elf magic" and the elves are just confused by what he means. I honestly think Shad doesn't think The Lord of the Rings is a good story :(
@@abadenoughdude300 haven't seen Gandalf wielding sheets of paper while fighting the Balrog, but maybe I missed that :D Or maybe Gandalf is actually just someone's familiar who is casting spells through him ^^
I think one thing we should establish, that wasn't explicitly stated is, having a character solve a problem using their magical talents is not the same as a Deus Ex Machina. Let's use the example of Luke Skywalker trapped in a cage. He knows the force can move objects, he knows that a tumbler in the padlock must be shifted slightly to unlock the cage, so he take a minute to focus on that tumbler and he is able to accomplish this task.
I also like to think there's a 3rd, middle category. For thematic matching, I'll call it a "firm" magic system. Systems where there's clear, defined restrictions on what an individual power or ability can do, but the range of different powers is essentially limitless.
That's the type my custom magic system is, with different dimensions being able to be manipulated either individually or together, but the user is taxed greatly for overuse. But one who can channel all the dimensions they want is nigh unstoppable
This video popped up on my notifications right as I was writing a document detailing how the material properties of a magic staff affect what it can do...either fate is a thing or google is watching me >.>
Agreed and he makes clear he is specifically speaking of the films here. Still LOTR is definitely a soft magic system and a very good example of one done right. Even with the Silmarillion etc where the explanations are much deeper we still do not know what the Maiar or Valar magic can or what it cannot do. Guess that is why Tolkien resolved his major plot points without it. It is a beautiful background setting and theme but the story is carried out by mortals who are the heroes proving they are worthy to inherit the earth magic is about to leave behind.
Tolkien didn't want his plots to be resolved by his demigod-level characters, but by his everyman-level characters. Gandalf _could_ have snapped his way to victory as though he had the Infinity Gauntlet, but normal people had to win because if he won then left, the world couldn't protect itself.
@@BNuts That is why I personally like soft magic much more then hard magic. I find it very difficult to relate to hard magic systems, or in soft magical settings in which the characters are powerfulin magic. It is honestly one of the problems I have with Brandon Sanderson's writing. Using the example of the wheel of time series I feel like the magic system was very much a soft magical system in the first several books, which I love, but progress to be more hard magic towards the end of the series. Also the characters get much more powerful towards the end. This put me off so much that I never read the last book and never will.
@@BNuts I understand that but I do find it harder to relate when they get to powerful. For instance I feel that Rand al Thor from the wheel of time gets less interesting as he gets more powerful throughout the series. This can be done well sometimes, as with Aang in Avatar, but I feel that more often then not it is done in a way that strips the humanity from the story. This is my opinion and I am fine that people have different ones. Hell I hate 99.9% of anime, and by hate I mean hate, and there are plenty of weebos out there.
As I recall, in the LOTR books, Gandalf was asked to melt the snow on a mountain, and he was unable to do so. He explained that magic actually just tapped into the hidden nature of things, so he didn't have the ability to just do what he wanted with anything. The point is, at least in the books, it's not really a matter of "plot holes", as you assert. It is a question of the intrinsic nature of the thing/place. This is very much off he top of my head, but the point is it was accounted for (although, you might be referencing the movies, which I didn't watch). I actually prefer this system, since there's much more a sense of mystery to it than a magic system where everything is accounted for.
In defense of Lord of the Rings... the books do explain that the Ishtari (wizards) and elves, use magic very sparingly in the Third Age. Firstly because it makes them brilliantly visible to Sauron and his servants, and second, because there is a danger of becoming corrupted the way that Saruman did. Characters who use magic more frequently become bound to the world and lose their spiritual qualities. It was the will of the Valar that their emissaries fight the shadow of Mordor with wisdom rather than matching power for power, because of how catastrophic the wars against Morgoth were during the First Age. Gandalf is arguably a bit more liberal with his use of magic during The Hobbit, but he was unaware of the rising threat. In the book, at least.
LOTR needs no defending as this is not an attack on it. (He specifically is refencing the movies when he discusses plot holes). The key thing is it is a soft system and that is fine it is not a bad thing. The Silmarillion and appendices do add a lot more information but its still a great system and it is still a soft one. We do not know what the Ishtari could do or exactly where their limits are, (Both absolute and self-imposed). Yet that is not important because as you say the point is it is for mortals to sace themselves and the role of those with magic is to support them and allow them to mature and succeed so that those with magic such as the elves and the ring bearers can move on and leave this earth to men. Soft does not mean bad or no rules or no explanations. What it implies is we (as readers) are unsure what it can and cannot do. Tolkien I feel understood this very well and that is why Helms Deep is not resolved with Ishtari or elven magic, the rings destruction is not resolved with said magic either. It's why the witch king is killed by Eowyn not Gandalf etc. it is a soft system but one that is fully satisfying whilst remaining mysterious to the reader and its true abilties are uncertain.
Trisjack20 - well, you say LOTR needs no defending, but Shad never actually says he is criticising the movies. He always says “LOTR does this, LOTR does that”. You can tell he is referring to the movies because he references things that are movie only and leaves out information from the books. In fact, I don’t think he’s read the books. But then he should say that. Because it’s irritating when a professional fantasy commentator starts referencing possibly the best - and certainly the most influential - epic in modern fantasy and starts saying it’s full of plot holes and errors in ways that are not justified.
@@willmosse3684 That's a valid comment. I believe I have seen a video where he mentions he has read them but he certainly would not be someone who has re-read them or describe himself as a big fan etc and if you are going to reference something heavily he could deflect this by openly saying the movies. I agree with you that it is clear because of what he says and the clips he shows and that he does reference Gandalf doing something in 'the Hobbit movies' using those words. He also does reference when he faces the witch King that if he (Gandalf) had done something he had done earlier in the movies (And that makes sense as the scene only happens in the movies). Yet a single line at the start saying clearly 'I am talking about the movies not the books' would defintely have helped avoid this problem you outline. His definition of a plot hole when referencing LOTR still exisit in LOTR the books ie something is used early on but then not used in later sections without the reader understanding why not. So Gandalf is able to throw down the Balrog and smite his ruin on the mountainside and he does use magic to disarm Aragorn Legolas and Gimli and yet never does that to any of the other powerful enemies (For which there are doubtless reasons such as limiting his magic use and influence on the world) without it being explained. It isn't just the magic there are various things we see used and then not (The infamous 'why didn't they fly with the giant Eagles' etc). I don't think these are massive plot holes as this is a mythos and was meant to be written this was leaving a lot to mystery and almost everything magical is portrayed to almost be normal. Calling the Wraiths Black riders and the river rising against them is never overtly magical and that's how Tolkien wanted it. Almost like a pseudo history mythology rathre than a novel. I love that the mystical aspects of the books are permanently underplayed and to me that makes these unexplained differences of approach a stylistic choice that goes along with the themes and 'reality' of the series and does not throw me out. When I was reading LOTR I never found myself thinking Why doesn't Gandalf just let loose with all his powers? Because Gandalf had been subtly underplaubing his part from day 1 it was in character for him to show only glimpses of what he could do. I didn't realise until years later what the Ishtari were or that Gandalf held the third ring of the Elves. Nor was I looking for that information to enjoy the story. Anyway thank you for your reply, it helped me understand the need for your first comment and made me think a little more deeply for myself on a great series of books.
Also, I believe the Istari aren't allowed to use their magic against lesser opponents, they're sent there to give advice and aid to the peoples, not to win the war single handedly. So the only times you see Gandalf using it, is against the balrog (fellow Maiar), Saruman (fellow Maiar), and the Nazgûl. So, no plot hole.
Gandalf can theoretically use his magic as much as he likes, but through self-imposed restriction (and the restriction of Eru Ilúvatar) he can only use his magic against certain opponents and in certain ways. For self defence, Gandalf can use any means to fight the Balrog, but he cannot use his powers willy-nilly to achieve what he sees as the ideal solution. Gandalf only uses his magic to protect himself or to protect his friends.
One note on LoTR magic, especially that of Gandalf: The rules, at least, are defined. He is limited to the powers of the mortal world while in Middle Earth. This is somewhat difficult to define, however, if the books are read closely, one thing that is clear is that "magic" is largely either a scientific device of some sort or situational in a similar way that natural effects only occur under certain situations. Thus Gandalf's magic is either technological, ie. fireworks, Glamdring, the elf ring he has and, one could argue, even his acorn "bombs", or are completely situational consequences brought on by the limited use of his Maiar nature in the natural world as dictated by the rule stated above. So when he fights another Maia such as the Balrog, yes he can make a shield or whatever, but when fighting the Witch King who is not a Maia he cannot though there are certainly other, lesser, powers he could employ because they line up naturally, though perhaps less effectively, with the situation.
@@shawnshultz8601 That always irks me when people refer to the movies when the books are right there. Especially since he's comparing it to other books!
Actually there's more than one magic system in my stories and some of them are soft, some are hard. Magic itself in my stories is a hard system. There are clear rules. Aura, PSI and Deformation however are soft magic systems (even though it's not Magic actually). However you can essentially learn to use Magic and very few ppl cannot wield it at all. But you must be born with affinity to Aura and PSI to wield it. While one is not born The Deformed, there are very nasty consequences to becoming one and it's not actually easy to begin with.
@@sheevpalpatine80 Yeah I know but in the books the magic does have limitations that are explained. Basically before the world was created people had an infinite amount of magic as long as they were willing to spend the time required to create something they were able to create anything. Then the more time they spent in the world the weaker their magic grew. In the trilogy the last magic is removed from middle earth.
@@dook-d3n I think the criticism can be directed mostly at the script writers in Hollywood, since when you adapt something, you are supposed to put in all the necessary information for your adaptation to make sense, otherwise it's nothing more than a plot hole. You should never be required to read the book to understand the movie if you catch my drift. I am of the opinion that the book is almost always better than the movie, but that's no excuse to make a bad movie. Just because it's not as good as the book, it should be a good movie non the less, and then it needs to make sense in and of itself!
Soft magic and hard magic serve very different roles. In the Lord of the Rings for instance magic is used as a plot device to push the story forward and in many instances a hard magic system would get the way of the story. Of course part of that is my own personal preference because I dislike the heavy use of magic by characters in stories. I find that it makes the characters less relatable and the world more unbelievable.
"In the real world there are properties about the real world that we understand just through observation - like gravity." *Physicists, nervously sweating*: Oh, yeah, no, we totally understand gravity. Ha. Nothing uncertain about gravity whatsoever.
We understand it in the sense that it is completely consistent on almost any size scale. Things attract things. More things increase attraction proportional to the amount of "more things" there is, due specifically to each individual thing in the "more things" attracting a thing on their own. *That* doesn't change on almost any sized scale and is therefor a hard rule. It's such a hard rule that gravity even attracts light/radiation, one of the smaller particles in the universe.
Well, it's less gravity, and more Quantum mechanics for *sure,* and space/time. For example everything is normal, but if you reverse time and the x y to -x -y, then everything should be normal in reverse. But it isnt. Certain forces and particles behave differently than they should
I read a science/philosophical article about gravity way back, and I think it explained the issue of "understanding gravity" really well. Basically, we understand gravity as "a phenomenon" just through observation, nothing uncertain about you falling down if you jump off a building. But when it comes to gravity as "a theory" (i.e. causal explanation of how gravity actually works), it's what you described: they'll nervously sweat. lol I think Shad refers to gravity more as a phenomenon rather than theory in this video.
@@johnathanera5863 No, we do know for the most of it why and how it works - we are already far past that point for nearly a century now. It just is trickling down to the masses so slowly it is like still riding around the city by horse.
In Brandon Sanderson's lecture on magic systems, which I would highly recommend, he points out that the 'softness'/'hardness' of the magic is determined by how much the *reader* knows, giving the example that Gandalf does have clearly defined limits and abilities in-universe, as the Silmarillion explains what the wizards are in greater detail, but within the story of Lord of the Rings we just aren't told that much.
Even in the Silmarillion where we do understand the role of the Ishtari and that the Valar exist etc we still do not know what the magic of the Valar or the Maiar can or cannot actually do. though we know magic is leaving the world and that using it 'draws the eye'. It is definitely a soft mythological system and it is an epically great one!
As far as I see it, Sanderson got it only from a readers perspective. However, I'm a worldbuilder and I always struggled with that concept because for a long time, I tought as the author I'm also not allowed to fully understand my soft magic system. And thats dangerous, as it clearly makes using magic as deus ex machina easier. There are so so many people that use the rules for the reader-perception for worldbuilding, that soft magic systems are incredible frowned upon in like 80-90% of worldbuilding communities. They tell you to build a hard magic system and only make it appear soft in the writing. This definition here however is clearly aimed at wordlbuilders, and I see it kinda as a defence of soft magic systems (like I said, most communities go the "the harder the better" approach) in a way authors could practically create them.
@@Cachalyce Good thinking and worth considering. I think it is useful to understand far more as the author than you necessarily reveal and I am absolutely certain that when there is some feeling of consistency that is crucial. I really liked your comment and has helped me think. I see myself as much more of a world builder than I am an author.
I'd like to see more magic being used for industrial revolutions in books. After all, hard magic is pretty much science in their world. Kind of like Avatar (but more than just lightning bending generators). Can't wait to see more applications of sunstones in Chronicles of Everfall 2.
I mean think about it. Magic in our world in history was the reqlm of a small caste that jelously guarded the secret to it. They go through a lot to wrote it down study it, get into the nitty gritty of it. If this power had actual very obvious effects why wouldnt there be stidents idnetifuing the laws of this force eaely on. Especially due to how powerful it is.
The thing is our technological advancement comes from the need to get things done effectively and the understanding of physics and stuff to find a way to achieve it. We have planes because we wanted faster travel than boats across oceans. But for Wizards there is no necessary need like that to evolve and if there is then a newly created spell or potion does the trick. In hard system like I would count Avatar the many restrictions lessen the fantastic Al nature of the world and for e.g. light Ning bending does not become an entire way of living but is more seen as a resource to excel technology as it does not have many other practical uses like a full or soft magic system like Harry Potter. So technically like in Star Wars were there is no real advancement in technology we must just assume that in these magic world's all of the major breakthroughs already happened and they are living on the peak their society can achieve with their magic.
@@DeathstroketheTerminator there may be advancement on magic tho. Create food and water mostly remove the need of farming but can still be upgraded in "create food and water that actually tastes good" for example.
@@noukan42 that depends on the magic. In Harry Potter for example it is stated that food can't be created out of thin air. I also didn't mean that there is no possibility for growth but rather that we could assume that if it ain't a major plot threat that certain improvements were either done or can't be done at all until the source material addresses it officially
Gandalf's magic is almost divine in nature. He seems to be able to do more impressive things when directly confronting evil. That said a true wizard would also live by a strict rule. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Gandolf's greatest power was inspiring others to resist evil and he used that all the time. Love the video. I write fantasy fiction and have had to deal with the principles of magic a lot. My books are not publicly available though I only share them with close friends and family because I really hate the modern publishing system.
Haven't you ever thought about gaining recognition and some money with your books? I mean, in order to become a professional writer? I write fantasy too, but honestly, I don't want only some friends and family (well, I can count less than 5 people out of it) to read it, especially because they're not my target audience. My Fantastic Literature mentor managed to release his book to a real audience through Facebook ADS. He sells all over the country (Brazil) and is now starting his own publishing company (with books written by his pupils).
There was this RPG : Anima, where magicians played next to psyons, martial artists or whatever. Magic/sf was all the same mechanic, but with different showy side. Mutants, superheroes were the same as magicians/wizards, but with more specialization on one or two powers (and their implicit requisites. Such has "you can regenerate as wolverine. You also can recreate body parts and live with your head intact. etc.)
Sounds like Wolverine is a Paladin - uses edged weapons and has strong self healing spells. Did I mention his class' passive sense evil ability? Yep, activates it with his sharp hearing and his nose's sense of smell- by sniffing his enemies, smelling the gun oil scent of approaching gunmen, etc.
@@biohazard724 hunter's mark. that sounds like an ability from the hunter class in World of Warcraft. A game I used to love before it all the talent trees, 40 man raids, and overall gameplay got dumbed down with the last expansions.
I think part of your argument can be summarized into: in soft-magic systems, you can make your own rules, but once you make them, you can't break them.
But you have to not only break your established rules but also keep in mind when introducing new elements that the story so far is still logical. That is if you want to write something that can be taken seriously by anyone over 10.
@@shadiversity I think the distinction between hard and soft magic is that hard magic is categorized. A soft magic system pretty much lets everything float; nothing is grouped or linked with others therefore there is no restriction when a new magic is introduced. On the other hand, in a hard magic system, everything is divided into groups, each one has certain attributes associated with it (one magic can still belong to multiple groups, e.g.: fire magic/use mana/channel through silver, etc.). So with a hard magic system, you can still make up new magic that has never been introduced before, but then you are obligated to categorize that new one into one of the groups already established, essentially putting limits and restrictions on it; OR, you can establish a new group with new attributes for this new magic (e.g. use life force instead of mana, so you can use it even when running out of mana), but then you'll have to define that new group and also find a way to justify the establishment of it (the danger of using life force, making it a rare thing). If you fail to do both, it would no longer be a hard magic system.
@@shadiversity But ... that is true for every magic system ever created. Every magic system had someone somewhere either write down rules or have an imagination of how it worked. Honestly there is no definition between the two because every time I've ever seen anyone attempt to explain it, it ultimately came down to how ignorant the reader was. All magic systems are limitless until the creator sets a limit, either before hand as a part of world building or in the middle of a scene with discovery. The only differences seem to be how much the author informs the reader of the system and how consistent he author is with that explanation.
Shadiversity so by your explanation would healing magic be categorised as soft magic while lighting bolt and fireball are hard magic( considering the latter two can be scientifically explainable because the human body does produce heat and a certain level of bio electricity so it’s reasonable to assume that mages have trained to produce a higher than normal amount) come to think of it this also means that the warp from warhammer 40k is classed as hard magic
Listening to this in the background, and you hear: "When Gandalf was fighting the Lich King..." Boy would I not be suprised if there is a fan-fiction crossover where that happens! :P
To be fair. He does drive off a nazgul when the riders from osgiliath(sp) are riding to the walls of gondor. ... though I dont think thats what he is talking about.
@I am tired of humanity a lich king is basically a pumped up necromancer.....which you do get to see in LOTR. You really ought to be more polite... it'd get you much farther in life.
In the in world lore of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien states that his books are translations of the the writings contained in the Red Book of the Westmarch, a.k.a the book that bilbo writes his story, There and Back Again, that is later given to Frodo to write about his journey. The inconsistences present in the magic used in these stories can be attributed to the hobbits' lack of understanding of it, because they're completely oblivious to the workings of Middle-Earth. You could also say that the process of "translation" could have affected it too, but that's too much of a stretch for my taste :P
@@Kingofthehill674 Well, to be fair, the silmarillion wasn't meant to be published. Christopher Tolkien took the journals and annotations that his father made while creating Middle-earth and published, without even correcting some mistakes made by JRR (the famous case of Glorfindel dying in the Silmarillion, and then appearing in LOTR). But, with that being said, Tolkien could have flashed out the magic a lot more, but the point of his stories was much more for them to be read like a myth. At least I think so.
I think my favorite hard magic system would have to be alchemy from Fullmetal alchemist. The rules and limitations/cost are a huge point of the whole series and it was handled so well. Actually animes in general usually come up with some pretty awesome and unique magic systems both in the hard and soft camps.
*Slight Spoilers* One of my favorite examples in FMAB of Brandon Sanderson's rule (that magic as a solution is only satisfying if the audience knows the rules) is in Ed's fight with Greed. Where at first he can't break through Greed's armour, Ed reasons out that it must be made from carbon, which can be molecularly altered (via alchemy) to have the hardness of graphite rather than diamond. It was a good example of how a character can use their "magic" to resolve an issue in a cool way that shows their cleverness rather than just being Dues ex machina.
"Hard magic" the way I would define it, is explainable, quantifiable and replicable. It has a clearly defined source, always produces the same result under the same conditions, can be described with mathematical equations established through observation and accurate predictions can be made based on that math. In some ways, magic would probably be quite similar to using a plastic "magic wand", performing the "magic ritual" of rubbing it on your hair, and then use it to bend a narrow stream of water without touching (just maybe on a different scale, to make it interesting). The quote about a sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic comes to mind :-)
One thing I like about "The Wheel of Time"'s magic system is that the limitations to how the Power is/can be used primarily arise from a lack of knowledge, lack of experimentation, or gradual forgetting over time. Many of the weaves that are discovered later on are ones that aren't "supposed" to be possible, or have been long forgotten because of the culturally-imposed restrictions on how the Power is used. I'm not a huge stickler for the "hard" vs. "soft" distinction, but what I think the series does very well is show that the Power is essentially "bigger" than the people who are attempting to systematize it. However much you might have learned, there's always more to it than you're aware of.
Hey, please, when you reveal the lord of the rings internal problems, point that those are peter jackson's done, not Tolkien. Magic in tlotr in the books is just perfect; armony.
This. This is actually part of why I refuse to see those movies as LotR. They're amazing fantasy movies, but they're a good bit too similar to the LotR story to not be compared - and in _that_ regard, they fail on several points, some of them critical, so they are _not_ telling the LotR story, they were just "inspired" by it.
Deathwish Gaming relevant to soft magic and plot holes - alita battle angel does high flippy robot jumps and twirls and can dodge and run fast and duck and weave and be super agile like a super fast anime character that denies physics- then all of a sudden loses this power at the end of the movie and can't rescue someone 1 foot from her.
@@Arcexey Actually, sci-fi's also deal with these same aspects. What is defined by the writer as technologically possible sets the audience expectations what can and cannot happen. So in many ways, it is relevant. I won't get into your antithesis with the anime. If all main characters should never fail in your eyes, then it is your right to feel that way, though I don't think that makes for good writing in the long run. Characters should be flawed. But as a sci-fi, 'denies physics' would be quite the opposite in what the boundaries of the setting would describe. If she is super fast, it is likely because she is a cyborg. If she can do flips, and duck and weave, it's because she was trained in a martial arts. None of which denies physics on its face.
What I learned from this video: I have a general distaste for magic systems, and part of what I appreciate about LOTR is that it doesn't waste time and effort on trying to establish one while distracting from the strengths of the writing. I think in Tolkien's case it mostly stems from creating a world of myths and legends that are as eroded by time and poorly understood as those of our own world. He very intentionally left so many things mysterious and unexplained, e.g. the ent-wives.
I like me some good hard crunchy magic. Having rules to establish a solid sense of plausibility and doesn't give cheap authors the opportunity to do asspulls. It's more fun to play with limitations anyway.
I agree. Cheap deus ex machina endings, plot-convenient power ups and all internally inconsistent magic suck ass. I hate how everytime in Harry Potter every new magical element that was introduced rendered the entire series into a big plothole ridden piece of shit.
@Dillon Brunschon I was thinking of the same exact thing while watching this Paolini did a great magic system. Its not really 'entirely limited' by your knowledge of the elvish language though. You can use a very verbose spell to do something, but you may be able to accomplish the same task with one or two words [then again, certain defensive spells might've needed to be verbose to be safe/effective]. I think it had more to do with the user's creativity and concentration. In the end, didn't they also establish you could use any language to do magic, just that elvish was the safest means since it was sort of designed for magic long ago?
Hi Shadowversity, just to throw my two cent for Gandalf and his magic. The movies are rotten for explaining them, whereas the novels actually give a far more clever explanation than the films. In the Hobbit when Gandalf saves the dwarves from the goblins, his bright light is described for us as readers as "smelling of gun powder" and the following scenes in the trees of Gandalf lighting pine cones for dwarves to lob at wolves, everything has a hint of being explainable. Things like his wizard duel with saruman or fighting the necromancer are never fleshed out and kept vague. And a perfect example of books explaining the magic much better than film is the destruction of the gate of Minis Tirath. But at this point a lot of Gandalf's magic as Gandalf the white seems to be vaguer but more powerful. The orcs are described as using a good few different battering rams but none can break the gate, the use of the massive boar ram might be just film I cannot recall but it was the Witch King who busts the gate with a spell and tries to step through first in the books. But Gandalf stands against him, no combat no encounter, just a stare off, we are left to wonder if Gandalf used magic to barrier the gate and perhaps the witch king just doesnt have an answer to Gandalf's power but no one enters mines tirith to my memory. This gets interrupted by the most beautiful cavalry charge in all of cinema and novels ofc but it is always implied neither side budged until the Witch King pulled back to get his felbeast and try and command a defence from Rohan's Last Charge. The novels always made Gandalf as The Grey seem like his magic was from something cunning or mundane used beyond the average lotr persons comprehension. Whereas Gandalf the Whites seems like it stemed from the Valar themselves, who have no ceiling to their power so him being far more power and near omniscient can be understood. Sorry for any mistakes in remembering I just wanted to give my piece on Gandalf and his magic
The standoff at the gate, Gandalf wasn’t preventing anyone from entering the city, not by magic at least. He went down to face the Witch King, to confront him before he could enter. The men didn’t interfere out of shock and fear of the Witch King and the orcs didn’t interfere for, well, much the same reason. Gandalf’s purpose in confronting him isn’t to hold him back with magic or anything, it’s merely to set an example, to defy the Witch King in his moment of triumph so as to give the men of Gondor hope. That’s usually what his role was for most of his time in Middle Earth, the Rohirrim arrive just in time to distract the Witch King and drag his attention elsewhere. Most magic Gandalf actually does is connected to his possession of the ring of fire, and other stuff described as ‘magic’ is merely described as such by the hobbits, who are the narrators of both the hobbit and LotR. Things that seem mystical to them they attribute to magic as a means of explaining it, even if it wasn’t really magic at all, mainly because their knowledge and understanding of the world outside the shire is relatively very limited.
In the books, the Witch King and Gandalf never clashed. I always thought it was stupid for the films to give the Witch King a victory over Gandalf, especially when they didn't bother fleshing out the prophecy of the Witch King's Doom. Then he spares Gandalf for no reason other than plot armor. The book actually creates a *well-done* subversion where the mightiest warriors on each side, Gandalf and the Witch King, are staring each other down, ready for an epic duel, but they each get diverted from their opponent for different reasons. Gandalf had to go save Faramir because it was a job he alone could do-there were plenty of men to fight, but nobody else to defy Denethor (aside from Beregond). As a result, the Witch King kills Theoden and all his personal guard save Eowyn. It doesn't create the "What an idiot" moment of the Witch King deciding not to take five seconds to kill a helpless Gandalf before heading out to face the Rohirrim. He didn't do that in the books because he wasn't certain he could defeat Gandalf, and it would cost valuable time regardless while the Rohirrim were attacking from the rear.
@@TheNoonish as with the last point, for the Witch King and Gandalf. I feel that it would be strange if he could actually defeat him, since at his core he stems from a man, whereas Gandalf is a Maia(spelling). They are both also wielding rings of power, and I don't know if there is anything about the power levels of the different rings, but it feels reasonable if the elven rings were more powerful than the rings of men. Not disagreeing with your point, just that my bet would be on Gandalf if they were actually facing off.
Summary: hard magic has many specific rules. Soft magic has a few hard rules and some soft rules. Ex; Hard: you need a wand. You must say a spell. The spell has to be perfect.etc. Soft: you need mana. You need matter. Knowing what your doing is optional, go have fun.
I know this is an old video but it just happens to be the one I'm on, and can I just say I absolutely love this channel? It's never about drama or anything, you're always striving to be as accurate and factual as possible, you admit when you get something wrong and you make great arguments when you believe you've been falsely told you were wrong. Also the fact that I can listen to these videos while doing other things makes it even more perfect.
Ah the Holdo maneuver the ancient trick if telling fans they are just angry manbabies and invalidate any criticism even if constructive. Yes, very effective strategy
I hear a huge bell tolling... Brb, gotta find my SS uniform and burn everyone that isn’t my nemesis even though my helpless nemesis is standing right over there.
I saw Shad uploaded a video, and I couldn't resist clicking and watching! I'm not saying Shad is a magical warlock, but I'm not saying he isn't either. (He likely is.)
This was a great explanation. If you just say "soft magic has no rules," it makes it harder to use a soft magic system because that explanation makes no sense.
I have a nice fantasy story in my mind, sadly im not a talented writer, and i dont even have the patience to pull this out, but the story is awesome. You explaining how plot holes can be avoided, or basically what to pay attention to helps a lot, building the base concepts of that universe. Thank you very much!:)
I'd like to defend The Lord of the Rings books by saying JRR Tolkien was dead long before the movies were made and they took a lot of liberties with it. The books were very different and the Hobbit movies were far worse about that.
The Hobbit movies are made for a crowd that saw LOTR while the book is a slightly dark childrens fairy tale about defeating a dragon. Even if they didn't stretch it to three hours and introduce a boring villain they would run into severe issues trying to adapt it. Also while I have tried reading the books I would say the movies did for the most part do a great job in terms of adapting the books to something I would watch as I gave them up due to far to much time wasted trying to establish aspects of the universe I just didn't care for with respect to the story itself.
Doesn't make much sense to me. Magic isn't supposed to have stupid limitations that Handicap itself. Magic is supposed to be based on Imagination and the only limits to it are the rules of existence.
@@1stmorgoth289 I remember very little of Harry Potter, but from what I remember, there was never a defined "This is what magic cannot do." The only limitation of the magic system was you needed a wand to cast magic or else it's just not possible. Otherwise from what I remember you could do just about anything, which would classify it as a soft magic system.
@@subwayfootlong788 they had limitations, there were some rules. I remember some like, you can't bring someone back to life, you can't produce food out of nothing
This i why i really do love your book Shad. It opens up an expansive magic system that you explain very well, and it adheres to a set of rules that you continue to establish throughout The Shadow of The Conqueror. I really look forward to your future works and I love your videos about these in depth analysis.
I like that scene, however it does seem a bit out of left field because they spent zero time setting up her powers in anything other than Return of the Jedi, and even there not really. She also needed a scene or two later on to give some context as to why she never flexed those obviously useful force tricks when it might have saved a galaxy she spent her whole life defending in more mundane ways.
It's just a force pull on the ship though, there's nothing outlandish about the force power itself, rather it's the situation that the movie decided to put Leia in to show she can use it.
@@PeterG00000 there were books taking place after Episode 6 that establish her eventually being trained in the force, those books were also where the movies got Kylo Ren from.
“For children” is such a non-argument, Freddie Prince Jr. said the same thing in his Star Wars rant and my response is “so what?” some of the best cartoons and stories are for kids and they are amazing. Avatar the Last Airbender is for kids and it is amazing. “For kids” implies a story doesn’t need to be well written or even good. I would say a soft magic system lends itself more to the fantastical surprise, Gandalf and Galadriel both hint that they have tremendous power but we don’t know the limitations and I think because of it scenes like the Balrog and the events at Donguldor are mor fantastic because of it. It’s the mystery that makes it work. Hard magic systems show the skill of the users better IMO because they operate within the rules and to see them pull those wins out it’s usually because of their knowledge of the rules. An example would be say Edward vs Greed in the 2003 Fullmetal Alchemisr series where Ed wins because he understands Alchemy and it’s rules better
The lack of understanding Gandalf's magic in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings is not a plot-hole, it's good writing. Gandalf is a deliberately inscrutable character--he keeps his secrets--and it would be detrimental to the cosmology of the stories, which are focused on the hobbits, to stop and explain how an Istari worked in every beat of the story. We do see, in the books, that Gandalf's magic is often based on trickery borne of wisdom as much as magic. He sets acorns on fire and throws them like small firebolts, he performs ventriloquism and voice-throwing to keep the trolls fighting til sunrise, he knows primal languages that gives him rapport with animals. All of these examples lend themselves to the conclusion that when Gandalf does something flashy he is either consuming a resource--be it his own essence or a prepared charm or a divine pact of sorts--or it is in fact made to look more impressive than it really is by his own artifice. Or you're referring to cheesy things directors throw into the movies to pad out the VFX budget, which certainly can be plot-holes.
You also forget it is actually mentionned in the book that he is there to guide and should not intervene in a way humans or elf couldn't, unless in very specific circumstances. Gandalf is actually much more powerfull than what we see in both the movies and LotR books. What a maiar like Gandalf can do is mostly explained in the Silmarillion. Some of the maiars are insanelly powerfull, but even the valars see their power degrade when used in ways Eru would not aprove and that is why Sauron made the One Ring, it was his way to avoid slowly loosing power like Melkor did.
Absolutely correct. Shad always wants to understand the mechanics of everything, but that is his own personal quirk. When the mechanics are not revealed, that does not mean there is a plot hole.
It's mentioned in the books that you would not encounter a more powerful being in middle earth unless you were brought face to face with Sauron. Against the Balrog is pretty much the only time he is allowed to really let loose as its a remnant of a previous age and no longer belongs in middle earth.
Yes, but keep in mind that Soft and Hard are based on how much the characters knows about magic. Hobbits and humans know close to nothing, which is why they call it magic, nor do they know what Gandalf is. But the elves know how the world works, so they don't even call it magic. Where the reader is with the characters is what we will classify as Soft or Hard Magic.
Personally my definitions are a bit more out-of-world. Hard Magic: The author takes steps to ensure the audience knows how the magic system works. An example would be the Weaves in Wheel of Time. Another example is "Any fantasy game" because game mechanics help define the magic system and how it works very clearly for the player. Soft Magic: The author obscures the majority of the magic system's rules from the audience. The author thus still follows the rules they came up with in worldbuilding, but without explaining how the system works to the reader. Example: Gandalf. We don't really know how LotR Magic works. It just... works. And I can see good arguments for both methods. The soft magic definition might be pursued by authors who want to preserve a sense of wonder and fantasy in the audience, while hard magic might be utilized by an author who's really proud of the system he created and wants to show off his creativity to his audience-- And also, as I said, kinda necessary for most magical game mechanics.
I think You are wrong in Your belief that authors who choose "hard magic systems" do so because they are "proud of it and want to show it off". I personally believe that the majority of them choose to use "hard magic system" motivated by the fact that (as mentioned by Mr.Shadeversity) The degree of satisfaction that the audience gets from a "resolution" (be that reached by magic, technology or some other means) is directly proportional to how well the audience understands the "method" used for that resolution. Which in my opinion is why "stories" using "soft magic systems", unless very well "crafted" very easily turn into "fairy tales". Best regards.
I dont think that it is a hard magic system. For one all the limitations come from the user not the magic itself, and as the story evolves eragon makes new spells and finds different ways to use them. So the main limiting factor is if there is enough energy so if there is energy the spell can happen.
The Wheel of Time was an awesome presentation of soft magic, the rules of it being largely forgotten by even the Aes Sedai, and the common person knowing nearly nothing about it. It was an effective way of bringing the reader along on that path of discovery. Even the conclusion made sense in the context of the magic system, but I won't say much about that besides "I win again, Lews Therin" On another note, The Dresden Files made for a good soft magic system as well. Even though nearly everything is possible, the rules set on the system fairly limits the use of magic. It made being clever more effective than being "all powerful". Besides, where else can you see a wizard dual-wielding a staff and a shotgun?
Loved the video, and particularly the early rant about dismissive arguments about breaking magic rules in a set system. Also I'd like to add a small correction, which is that while the analogy works due to general misinformation, but in truth no one actually quite knows how gravity works
@@Eryna_ True, but with other forces we have empirical evidence of why they work and what fields/particles are transferring the forces ie. What makes them tick. With gravity however, all we have is guesses, haven't observed anything that actually transfers the force, and we have zero clue how it works (or rather, why it does seem to work) at quantum level. We are speculating there is a theory of quantum gravity that is the basis of all other physics at the primal level, yet have 0 actual proof/knowledge of it being a thing or not So in the field of theoretical physics, gravity is pretty high on the "mmm, absolutely maybe" scale
You can actually use Mission: Impossible as a kind of hard magic system, because they frequently explain what their tools are before they use them, or so that, when they come back later in the movies, we understand where they got them from.
I disagree with you about lord of the rings. The magic in lord of the rings is supposed to be mysterious and the audience is supposed to not know how it works (Tolkien has said this himself). I mean Gandalf is supposed to be a "Messiah" type of character. He is sent down by God to guide the inhabitans of the middle-earth. He is not supposed to come down and just do everything himself, he is just a guide. So it makes sense that he doesn't overuse his abilities. Tolkien is massively inspired by mythology and a common theme in mythology is that the gods help humans achieve goals but they don't do it for them even though the gods absolutely could just do all the work easily and the end result would be pretty much the same. Also alot of magical and mystical things that happens in mythology is totally unexplained, mysterious and only happens once. The magic that happens in mythology and in lord of the rings is only there to move things forwards (both plotwise but also for the heroes in the story). Not everything needs to be explained. Having things being mystical, mysterious and totally unexplainable does in my opinion add a sense of wonder to the story/world. And for this reason i love mythology. There is so many weird things that makes no sense at all in myths and legends. Like Thor drinking from a drinking horn connected to the ocean and that's why we have tides in a single event but tides comes everyday, which makes the whole story make no sense, but it still gives a mystical/sense of wonder feel that i really connect with and intrigues me, even though it is not explained or doesnt make sense at all. I see Lord if the Rings as a story inside a mythological universe like Beouwolf or other ancient stories. These is after all what inspired Tolkien he even stole the idéa of elves from norse mythology. The magical elements doesn't have to make sense. Gandalf isnt human. Gandalf is connected to God. And God "work in mysterious ways". It's clear that in mythology that humans doesn't understand the gods or the nature of magic just like how humans didn't understand basic things like disease, bacteria, infections, miscarriage, mental illness, etc, etc. To ancient humans the whole world was mysterious and worked in (to them) totally unexplainable ways that needed super natural entities to make sense of. Lord of the rings gives me that type of feeling. A sense of mystery and wonder. I don't want to know why Gandalf didn't use spells more than once. Well Tolkien have said why he wrote it that way, but i mean i dont want to know an in world explaination for why, that takes away the sense of wonder. The mystical, magical, divine, spiritual world should be unexplainable and should (at times) make no sense to us mortals. We are not gods, we can't understand why or how the Gods do their thing.
If a magic system appears to an observer to work in mysterious and inconsistent ways, then it is a soft magic system to that observer. This is true for most, if not all real world mythologies.
@@KevinUchihaOG there's no argument, only your subjective fanboy opinion to justify LOTR plotholes and nonsensical events. For someone to read that and accept is just as ridiculous as accepting that Gandalf is a character that makes sense because he's supposed to represent religion It doesn't matter if the author intended it to be this or that, the character doesn't make sense in its own universe magical or not
It's important to remember that the scene you was referencing from the LoTR was cut from the cinematic version of the movie precisely because it deviates too much from the source material and is incoherent within the movie It's a bad scene, that's why it got cut In the books Gandalf uses magic every time he needs to On the return of the king specifically he do his white flame spell to drive off the nazgul twice to help the people fleeing from Osghiliath for example
Worth pointing out that he uses his magic more freely as Gandalf the White because Eru gave him the authority to do so. As Gandalf the Grey his powers were greatly restrained; it wasn't until the situation in Middle-Earth was shown to be more dire than anyone suspected (with Gandalf being the last of the wizards who hadn't shirked their duties or fallen to corruption) that his restraints were removed.
@@Nuvizzle the restrain was more about on how to use his powers then to use it at all. I.e. they should not use force to unite people against Sauron. But he uses his magic and spells every time he needs to. Specially in the hobbit before Gandalf get Glandring he uses a lot of spells on the goblins cave for example His other restrain was about his body. All the Istari where incarnated like normal humans, who aged slowly. When Gandalf gets reborn as white his body has the same nature as other Ainur, with no more restrictions so he can use his power at its fullest
IngLouisSchreurs lol same but like my usual favs are stuff like the 50 shades series. I found LOTR boring but I’ve listened to his book for like 3ish hours straight now, it’s like a movie
Sanderson does amazing things using unknown rules and unknown effects that could have been figured out instead of just deus ex machina which I personally love.
When fighting the Balrog, Gandalf says: "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. ... The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn" An anti-fire barrier is not really useful against a Staff Destruction spell from the Witch King XD
@@Petaurista13 No it is also stated that his powers as a Maiar are limited while existing on Earth. If he was at his actual full potential he could overthrow Sauron's armies singlehandedly, but its made clear that he is there to guide people - not to rule the world or decide who gets to live and die. That's also shown in the discussion he has with Frodo about the real difficulty is not about being able to take a life, but rather in when to spare one. There are so many small elements that subliminally set the basic rules of the soft magic that is being used in LotR, and Shad kinda glanced over most of it.
Ugh the stupid staff breaking thing. It was only in the movies, and it might be one of the dumber parts. Earlier we’re shown that Saruman’s staff breaks and this is supposed to be symbolic of the fact that Saruman has lost his power. So does it mean the same thing for Gandalf? It’s one of the places where Peter went a little over the top.
Daniel Kemnitz Shad kind of neglects the fact that a lot of the magic in LotR, especially in the movies, comes from the rings. Most magic we see Gandalf use comes from his ownership of the ring of fire. Also, even unrestrained I doubt Gandalf could defeat Sauron single-handedly. They’re similar beings, both maia, but Sauron is far stronger than Gandalf, at least as far as we would define strength and power here. They have different strengths, Sauron’s being brute force and an utter will to dominate while Gandalf’s are his compassion and his ability to motivate people.
For some reason I thought of how the "magic" in the movie Ghost works. Swayze's character can't manipulate the real world, except accidentally, until he meets the subway ghost who teaches him how to focus. The magic exists, is accessible to some, has limitations, and is used well without being silly.
@@JonathanMandrake It was early enough in the movie to introduce improvement in skill between the movies, and it was in a movie where the main heroes fail so it isn't as though he bent reality to gain powers for the sake of winning
Jojo: step 1 - introduce the mystery of the power. step 2 - characters learn (or villain explains to viewer) how the power works. step 3 - apply the power's rules in completely unique, roundabout ways to have power do things it previously seemed like it couldn't.
I think one of the best systems of hard magic is in "Once upon a time" series where there was only one rule of magic: it always come with the price. And boy, this price was often BRUTAL.
The Lord of the Rings follows that rule, more or less, but in its case it's power that always comes with a price, whether that power is magical or not. For example when Gandalf the Grey is reincarnated as Gandalf the White, he's given more freedom to use his power, but the cost of that is he must leave Middle-Earth once his task is complete. Those who refuse to pay the price for their power always face the consequences in the end, whether it's the other Maiar (Gandalf's species) falling to corruption and becoming Balrogs, or the fall of Numenor and the decline of the kingdom of men.
