It’s even simpler than that. The author sets the rules of the world. If those rules change, are ignored, or characters behave in a way that disagrees with the rules the reader’s trust is betrayed.
That’s why people get a stick up their ass about plot holes. They were told things work a certain way, but characters miss an obvious opportunity or break an already established rule. Lack of effort on the author’s part makes the reader feel like their time hasn’t been respected.
See: Mistborn, where you have a very expensive resource that, when ingested by a person that can use that universe’s magic, gives one an ability to peek a few seconds into the future. That’s is more or less what you are describing.
Oh, and Mistborn magic system is based on ingesting different metals and alloys, and basically turns one into a supercharged Magneto from X-Men, if Magneto also got superstrength, supersenses and the ability to manipulate emotions. Despite how wacky it sounds, it’s an extremely well thought out and consistent magic system.
Yeah, but specifically the atium is very close to the luck potion in how easy it makes it for the user to just rewrite their immediate future (at least, in combat). All the other stuff could be roughly equivalent to your average wizard’s spell arsenal.
Also, you will not regret finishing the series. It’s a ride and a half
Yeah, what’s important is internal consistency, I love hard sci-fi but I also appreciate some of the more fantastical worlds like the cosmere or final fantasy 14 because they set up rules and don’t throw them away. That’s why I hate whenever people come along with arguments like “oh it’s a fantasy world so anything could happen” because that’s not how it should work.
I mean, Joanne wrote her first book living in her car by copying other stories. Literally everything interesting or complicated is borrowed from either mythology or some other book. She’s not a great writer, she’s a pretty good writer who wrote kids’ stories that were made into great movies.
To go even further- I think she was too ambitious about her own writing ability.
Having a series of 7 books, each tied to a school year, where the characters age over time, with the intended audience also changing over time. Sorcerer’s Stone is a book about 11 year olds, for 11 year olds. Goblet of Fire is about 14 year olds, for 14 year olds. There’s a lot of wiggle room, but that’s the baseline. Sorcerer’s Stone is a pretty simple children’s book. Prisoner of Askaban starts dealing with the history of Voldemort 's rise to power, starts dealing with more powerful banned spells that raise ethical questions, the criminal justice system, etc.
I remember when book 5 came out being heavily disappointed in it. It was just a dark and depressing slog. Half-Blood Prince was just boring- most of the book focusing too much on just teenage drama and romance. Deathly Hallows had an entirely different tone from the rest of the series and felt like bad fan fiction. All the way up to eh epilogue, where we get a glimpse of the main characters as adults that feels like really hamfosted fan service. I think Rowling was just better at writing for/about 11-14 year olds than she was 15-17 year olds.
Keep in mind, she had written most of the Order of the Phoenix before the movies came out, but after she had inked the movie deal. Half-Blood Prince was written after the first movies had been released, and fans had reacted to the movie characterizations. It reads like a bad movie fanfic, because she was writing a script with the actors in mind.
I read leaks of Deathly Hallows online in advance and I was convinced they were fake because they seemed to be written so differently than previous books
It’s even simpler than that. The author sets the rules of the world. If those rules change, are ignored, or characters behave in a way that disagrees with the rules the reader’s trust is betrayed.
That’s why people get a stick up their ass about plot holes. They were told things work a certain way, but characters miss an obvious opportunity or break an already established rule. Lack of effort on the author’s part makes the reader feel like their time hasn’t been respected.
Nevermind how two wizards dueling under the influence of Felix Felicia would be metal af.
The Intensified Luck Soldiers at the end of Escaflowne had a scene like this and it was one of the best mecha battle flights I’ve ever watched.
See: Mistborn, where you have a very expensive resource that, when ingested by a person that can use that universe’s magic, gives one an ability to peek a few seconds into the future. That’s is more or less what you are describing.
Oh, and Mistborn magic system is based on ingesting different metals and alloys, and basically turns one into a supercharged Magneto from X-Men, if Magneto also got superstrength, supersenses and the ability to manipulate emotions. Despite how wacky it sounds, it’s an extremely well thought out and consistent magic system.
Allomancy got you a lot more than just peaking into the future. I only made it through the Final Empire trilogy, but I’m familiar with the setup.
Yeah, but specifically the atium is very close to the luck potion in how easy it makes it for the user to just rewrite their immediate future (at least, in combat). All the other stuff could be roughly equivalent to your average wizard’s spell arsenal.
Also, you will not regret finishing the series. It’s a ride and a half
Yeah, what’s important is internal consistency, I love hard sci-fi but I also appreciate some of the more fantastical worlds like the cosmere or final fantasy 14 because they set up rules and don’t throw them away. That’s why I hate whenever people come along with arguments like “oh it’s a fantasy world so anything could happen” because that’s not how it should work.
I mean, Joanne wrote her first book living in her car by copying other stories. Literally everything interesting or complicated is borrowed from either mythology or some other book. She’s not a great writer, she’s a pretty good writer who wrote kids’ stories that were made into great movies.
To go even further- I think she was too ambitious about her own writing ability.
Having a series of 7 books, each tied to a school year, where the characters age over time, with the intended audience also changing over time. Sorcerer’s Stone is a book about 11 year olds, for 11 year olds. Goblet of Fire is about 14 year olds, for 14 year olds. There’s a lot of wiggle room, but that’s the baseline. Sorcerer’s Stone is a pretty simple children’s book. Prisoner of Askaban starts dealing with the history of Voldemort 's rise to power, starts dealing with more powerful banned spells that raise ethical questions, the criminal justice system, etc.
I remember when book 5 came out being heavily disappointed in it. It was just a dark and depressing slog. Half-Blood Prince was just boring- most of the book focusing too much on just teenage drama and romance. Deathly Hallows had an entirely different tone from the rest of the series and felt like bad fan fiction. All the way up to eh epilogue, where we get a glimpse of the main characters as adults that feels like really hamfosted fan service. I think Rowling was just better at writing for/about 11-14 year olds than she was 15-17 year olds.
Keep in mind, she had written most of the Order of the Phoenix before the movies came out, but after she had inked the movie deal. Half-Blood Prince was written after the first movies had been released, and fans had reacted to the movie characterizations. It reads like a bad movie fanfic, because she was writing a script with the actors in mind.
I read leaks of Deathly Hallows online in advance and I was convinced they were fake because they seemed to be written so differently than previous books