Nothing defines a world quite like hard and soft magic in fantasy. Does the magic have endless rules or no rules at all? And does it matter?
Magic in fantasy falls into two frameworks.
Go Hard
Hard Magic is extensively rules-based and codified much like game-systems from RPG’s and video games. This appeals to more geeky authors and readers who enjoy the game-mechanics and want to know the detail how the system works.
What are the ‘levels,’ the hierarchies, the zone of impact, the duration. How long does it take to prepare and execute, what kind of energy is summoned, what props or ingredients do you need? How much study does it take? Is there an exam?
Hard magic systems look more like game rules. Rules offer useful constraints on the use of magic within a world. They can add a level of rationale and ‘realism’ to anchor said magic in a credible environment. They also make the magic-user’s journey from novice to grand wizard more like a standard education.
This is why we have so many magic schools, academies, apprenticeships, spell books, grimoires and magical smart-asses in fiction.
Hard magic satisfies the reader who wants to know the how and why in as much detail as possible.
This is all fine until it isn’t, when the author needs to bend, break or circumvent the rules in order to escalate or resolve the plot. And then they will.
Soft and Squishy
Soft Magic is more ephemeral, with few to no explained rules; users just ‘do it’ and the results are what they are. Or whatever the author needs to achieve the story goals. Soft magic is rarely explained, there are fewer hierarchies besides whatever the author says there is.
No one can argue that a given spell breaks ‘the rules’ because there aren’t any. We don’t get hung up on the detail of why something wouldn’t work because it just does.
Soft magic is more mysterious, more epic, more ‘magical’ because it isn’t explained, constrained, confined or reduced to a badly translated manufacturers’ manual. This annoys the reader who demands to know the how and why but the author won’t tell them. The reader who just wants to be swept along in the emotions of the story doesn’t care about the rules of magic.
It also provides a get-out-of-jail card for the author who needs to escalate or change direction. You just do it with a one-line explanation. Or none at all.
Spectrum Behavior
There isn’t a definitive Hard and Soft magic proscribed anywhere on a chart. Each work of fantasy fiction places its magic somewhere on a sliding scale. For examples, lets say Brandon Sanderson sits way over on the left of Hard Magic, much further than Robert Jordan‘s hybrid magic system. Tolkien sits over on the right of Soft Magic, while J. K. Rowling shuffles Harry Potter’s magic somewhere left of center depending on what plot device she needs at any given time.
Sanderson’s Allomancy has fixed rules and components. Right up to the point where he needs something for the plot. Tolkien never explains anything. His magic is ancient, timeless and powerful. Rowling lays out a system based on cod-Latin incantations, a wooden wand containing bits of dead creatures and some physical wiggly-waggling to focus and direct the effects.
As long as the magic system works on its own terms, you have to accept it or acknowledge that you’re reading the wrong genre and move on. Unless…
Promises and Payoffs
Whatever magic system the author chooses should follow the writing rules of set-up, promise and pay-off. Set-up what kind of magic this is, who has it, what it costs, what it can achieve. This makes certain promises to the reader how the magic system plays into the overall story. They will expect at least an internally logical and consistent pay-off at the end.
This means no short-cuts, no Deus ex Machina miracles, no revelations of hidden exceptions or overrides. In other words, do what you said at the beginning and no cheating.
Ever read a passage where you burst out “well, that wouldn’t happen?” The author probably sacrificed something in the magic system to serve a plot point. Or else you’ve taken this magic system far too seriously and imposed your own rules and restrictions on it.
Did the author contradict their own rules? Blow out an inconvenient rule for the sake of plot? Perhaps the author left too many blank spaces and you’ve colored inside the lines yourself?
Both hard and soft magic can break promises or deliver pay-offs far from expectations.
Franchise extension
The longer the magic system goes on, the more likely the author needs to dig deeper, or dig themselves out of a hole in order to extend their stories.
This is why Rowling ret-conned her magic with each book. That’s “Retroactive Continuity.” That means revising, qualifying, adding, bending or superceding said rules when the plot demands.
Lucasfilm/Disney completely ignored everything for the Jedi Space-Wizards in the Star Wars sequels. The Force is about as plastic as a Play-Doh figure in microwave. It was already softer than a soft cheese left in a car in a heatwave. Nothing is ‘canon’ any more.
Rule of thumb
It’s a rule of thumb, or a rule of diminishing returns. The more you layer in, the more likely you’ll break the magic, hard or soft. The promises and the payoff no longer meet the set-up. The breakage usually manifests itself, or else the rules-mechanics threaten the castle with burning brands and pitch-forks.
So which is better, hard or soft magic in fantasy? I steer on the side of caution; the less I explain, the less I have to defend later.