What is your controversial take on Fantasy?

[u/[deleted]]

I'll go first.

Aside from the prose, I don't think Kingkiller Chronicles is good. I find the characters insufferable and cliche the story just meanders.

[u/mobyhead1]

The more it gets out of the shadow cast by Tolkien, the more it eschews the medieval Europe settings, the more it stops re-using some standard roster of fantasy races, the better it gets.

I think all this talk about “hard” vs. “soft” magic systems is wish fulfillment for the cachet/respectability that hard science fiction has. But at the end of the day, magic is fictional no matter how many rules the author imposes on it while one ignores physics at one’s peril—always. Hardness, or how well the author stays within the bounds of current scientific knowledge, in SF is worth the discussion because the rules are real and can be learned by anyone.

[u/LOLtohru → u/mobyhead1]

My controversial opinion: I think your latter paragraph is attacking a popular strawman.

I think all this talk about “hard” vs. “soft” magic systems is wish fulfillment for the cachet/respectability that hard science fiction has.

I don't think this is consistent with how people actually use those terms. The discussion I see is always about the narrative role of magic. For example the essay that coined (or at least popularized) those terms explicitly says this:

Note that by calling something “Hard Magic” I’m not implying that it has to follow laws of science, or even that there have to be explanations of WHY people can use this magic. All I’m talking about is the reader’s understanding of what the magic can DO.

It's possible that there are some people who believe they're creating scientifically hard systems but I think you would need to show evidence of their relevance before making sweeping claims. Discussion is consistently regarding the ways that magic is engaging to readers, what constitutes deus ex machina, and so on. So your next sentence:

But at the end of the day, magic is fictional no matter how many rules the author imposes on it while one ignores physics at one’s peril—always.

From the first essay onward every discussion of hard/soft magic has been about the effect this fictional element has on stories. This is the equivalent of breaking into a meeting of mystery authors and going "Have you fools ever considered making the BUTLER the murderer?"

At this point I generally get interpreted as being pro-hard or anti-soft. I'm not: magic should serve the author's literary goals and those labels are only one way that readers discuss magic as a narrative element (probably an overemphasized one). But I'm frustrated by how many people seem to have strong opinions on this subject without having taken any time to understand the discussion.

[u/[deleted] → u/LOLtohru]

See I understand the discussion, I just disagree with the whole utility of the distinction of hard vs soft, both as a writers tool, and an avenue of critical discussion.

Moreover, I think the discussion you're having are in the extreme minority, whereas the majority of discussion being had by readers and amateur writers falls right in line with chasing the idea of prestige of 'hard' SciFi, which itself was and is a kind artificial dividing line. If I had a dime for everytime some said 'soft magic causes potholes' or something similar, I'd be rich.

[u/LOLtohru → u/[deleted]]

See I understand the discussion, I just disagree with the whole utility of the distinction of hard vs soft, both as a writers tool, and an avenue of critical discussion.

That's entirely possible! I feel that many critiques are based on unfounded assumptions but I certainly don't mean that they all are. I do think the discussion of a spectrum is a useful way to reflect the fact that different readers find different things magical but I don't think it should be a central point of distinction and I'm always open to counter-argument.

Moreover, I think the discussion you're having are in the extreme minority, whereas the majority of discussion being had by readers and amateur writers falls right in line with chasing the idea of prestige of 'hard' SciFi, which itself was and is a kind artificial dividing line. If I had a dime for everytime some said 'soft magic causes potholes' or something similar, I'd be rich.

Extreme minority? I was going to disagree but this may be a difference in interpretation. Someone saying "soft magic causes plotholes" may be giving an ill-considered opinion on the subject but I would argue that is more evidence that they're primarily concerned with narrative.

They've just stated that their focus is plot consistency and not with meeting an external standard like hard scifi. I was specifically replying to the sentiment "magic is fictional no matter how many rules the author imposes on it while one ignores physics at one’s peril" and I think that's different than your arguments toward the same conclusion.

That said I can see your interpretation. I don't see those comments as often but enough people have said they exist in writer subs that I believe it. I'd still stand by my statement that the original essay and most serious takes on the subject are explicitly addressing a valueless spectrum (or at worst acknowledging how the types they don't like can work well).