I’m toying with this idea of a S&S-style fantasy romance whose setting is loosely based on the Late Bronze Age. The female lead is very intentionally patterned on Conan as a “barbarian” adventurer and commander who seizes the crown of a “civilized” nation, while the male lead is the sole surviving son of a major noble family and forced to marry her by his scheming father. His skills lie in scholasticism and sorcery. Which is where things get thorny. One of the defining features of sword & sorcery is its approach to magic. The arcane is mysterious and incredibly dangerous if not outright malevolent. It’s often derived from evil or unknowable entities. Sometimes just using it corrupts the soul. All of this means villains are its main users. There are neutral to good magic users in sword & sorcery, but they tend to be side characters rather than POVs. So these are the challenges I’m facing: How do you maintain the mystery and ominous aura around magic when you’re writing from the perspective of someone who understands it well enough to be a sorcerer? What kind of abilities would be most useful in courtly intrigue, battle, and clashes with occult threats while still maintaining the tone of S&S? What are the best ways to establish sorcery as ominous, dangerous, and often vile without making the character repulsive to readers and the female lead because he practices it? Any advice, ideas, or suggestions you have are welcome. Same for stories to look to for comparison or resources on the way magic was viewed and “practiced” in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
This reminds me immediately of the Toltec, a Native American tribe based in Northern Mexico. They have shamans, who of course use magic to help the people of the tribe (psychotherapists of their day), and often after being a shaman for some time one will decide to become a sorcerer instead, and use the magic for his or her own benefit at the expense of other people. So often the shamans are casting spells and hexes to protect people from the evil magic of a sorcerer, who might be old compatriots or maybe rivals. I learned about this from the Carlos Castaneda books, featuring a sorcerer named Don Juan DeMatus, who is presented as completely real by Castaneda, but is believed to be largely invented by him. Regardless, Castaneda seems to know a lot about the sorcery practices. He lived in the region and I believe talked with a lot of practitioners as well as researching them extensively. Their practices may be very different from Egypt and Mesopotamia, but you might use the idea of former shamans or good magicians becoming evil and then fighting against their old friends or perhaps mentors.
A related question would be, How do you maintain the mystery around God for someone well-versed in theology? Or, How do you maintain the awe of nature for someone who has studied physics or chemistry? There are certain objects that by their own nature reveal new mysteries with each discovery. In the field of sword and sorcery literature, one example that comes to mind of a sorcerer protagonist is Clark Ashton Smith's The Double Shadow. The protagonist is the apprentice of an accomplished necromancer who nonetheless gets into something over his head with horrific results. There is always some further vista to explore, at one's peril. Approaching it from the angle of the history of esotericism, a common theme of sorcerer-philosophers is that they are tapping into something greater than themselves and which transcends the grasp of human reasoning. There is some infinite part of the sacred principle- called "God," "the One", Dao, etc.- which is either wholly ineffable or contemplated only by some suprarational faculty that is dormant or missing in most people. For some example of what I'm talking about, consult the works of Plotinus and Iamblichus. The magician or theurgist plays a humble role within a vast field or hierarchy of beings or principles, and if they channel awesome powers they do so not of themselves but by their participation in some higher principle that they cannot fully grasp. So many spells call on the authority of gods or angels to command spirits to performs tasks, while others involve the magician being actually possessed by the deity. In Daoism this role is highly formalized where the priest is assigned a specific level within a spiritual bureaucracy, and his spells are written out and sealed like government decrees. So magicians who think they know everything would perforce be closed off from important realities and more likely be very limited in their skills. Surveillance, poisons, mood-alterating philtres, glamours, familiars and servitor daemons can do all kinds of stuff in that setting. It's a discipline that can be practiced both by the noble and the corrupt, which for good or ill invokes forces beyond normal human comprehension, promising amazing rewards and horrifying mishaps. Rather than fiction I think you should check out Iamblichus' classic work On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. Iamblichus provides a detailed Platonist philosophical defense of traditional ritual practices in the Greco-Roman world and in the process lays the foundation for what would later be known as occultism in the West (and ultimately the 19th century Theosophy that shaped S&S writers' ideas about magic and the arcane). Also check out the texts collected in the Greek Magical Papyri for practical examples. For something non-Western Michael Saso's book Taoist Master Chuang gives a detailed overview of a modern sorcerer's practice in China in its many facets.
You are taking this to an extreme. The evil sorcerers you mention are typically those who are after power in some form, and will do anything to reach that goal. If that means selling their soul, they weren't using it any way. The other aspect is these types of deals are a short cut to power. This gives you complications to explore as your MMC resists the short cut, and actually puts in the work to advance his craft. This would very much depend on how you set up the magic system. I would suggest an inner struggle, as the MMC resists the temptation of taking a short cut to get to what he desires. "Is it really worth me soul to get [desire] now?" Take a look at the spellmonger series by Terry mancour. His battle spells are more focused on the mage himself, buffs in any MMO. Along with all the education and study that goes into magic. So misdirection would be a major tool. Magic is a tool. What you are talking about here is the intent of the user. I would stress that people see it that way because of all the evil other sorcerers have done with it in the past. While the MMC tries to use it for good, but mistakes can happen. One Complication he could be forced to face is the negative consequences of an act he thought would be good, and it was short term. It really comes down to the magic system you create. Perhaps magic is something that slowly corrupts the user over time. The MMC knows this, but is fascinated by magic so uses it but does so sparingly to avoid the possibility of corruption.
A defensive focus would make sense. The MMC is fairly young—around twenty—so his education wouldn’t be especially deep, and where better to start than with self-defense? Geometric magic to foil eavesdroppers, sorcerers using astral projection, and curses was one of the first ideas that came to mind. I definitely picked up on the theurgy in S&S. Not sure how far to take it, though. The MMC already starts off with limited agency, as he’s basically a hostage to ensure his family’s loyalty, so I don’t want to infringe much further. This idea was crafted with the “romance for men” niche in mind, so he does need to be someone who the audience can identify with and even insert themselves into. Being little more than an instrument of a deity or demon could be counterproductive on that front. Since gods afoot raises questions of why they don’t deal with certain problems themselves, I’m considering them being “dead and dreaming” in the style of Lovecraft, with the more monumental feats of sorcery fueled by what traces of them are left in the world. Some sorcerers might be furthering their agendas until the stars are right for them to live again, and a reluctance to meddle in this realm could help keep it mysterious even to the MMC. Astral projection for surveillance and alchemy for various concoctions were two of the other fields I’ve been considering as his areas of expertise, so this is encouraging. Summons also crossed my mind, but the connotations surrounding them are unsavory enough I’m not sure how to include them in a way that fits the tone without tainting the MMC. These are exactly the sort of stuff I’m looking for. Thanks!
Interesting. I wrote a similar work, but firmly based in the Late Iron Age. So, your proposal naturally peaked my interest. Sorry, I changed your dot-points into 1, 2, 3 to make them easier (for me, at least) to answer. My answers are below: 1. I think Le Panda Du Mal answered question #1 very well, and I have just one thing to add here: why should magic be mysterious, ominous, dangerous, or malevolent? Why should it be derived from evil or unknowable entities, or corrupt the soul? Why should only villains use it? Why should good or neutral wizards be side-characters in S&S? Is it because Howard said so? In the Conan series, magic-users are normally evil, I agree. But so what? Who made Howard 'the last word' on magic? I'm sorry, I'm confused. I've read Tolkien and Pratchett, Rowling and Wynne Jones, as well as others, and in none of their works are wizards or magic users solely evil, or solely side-characters. So, again, I come to the same question: why are magic-users in S&S 'evil'? 2. Again, Le Panda Du Mal answered this question very well. I have one thing to add: Le Panda Du Mal mentioned poisons, which reminded me of the fact that so-called magicians flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, certainly in England and France. John Dee is only the most famous of them. For examples of those who weren't so lucky -- and this is where poisons come in -- see the Affair of Simon Forman and Frances Howard (a major scandal in James I's court in England), or the famous Affair of the Poisons (a major murder-scandal in Louis XIV's court). The wiki-links are reliable enough, at any rate. So, the fact remains that even in the age of 'witchfinders' and witch-burnings, so-called 'witches' and 'warlocks' -- a collective noun for anyone in that time who provided medicine, but wasn't licensed to do so -- were tolerated, until it became politically inconvenient to do so. In other words, hypocrisy in action, or politics as usual. 3. You ask for 'some of the best ways to establish sorcery as ominous, dangerous, and vile without making the character repulsive to readers and the female lead because he practices it.' To that, I ask again: why does sorcery have to be 'ominous, dangerous and vile'? If that's what you're going for, however, the above-mentioned "Affair of Simon Forman and Frances Howard" (from the early 1600s) is appropriate. Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, was trapped in a loveless marriage with Robert Devereux, a boor of a husband who left her on a tour of Europe for two years, and neglected her. Simon Forman was an alchemist who offered to help Frances marry Robert Carr, whom she loved, by helping her prove that her husband was impotent. Then she could divorce her husband and marry another. Frances was trapped in a loveless marriage and desperate to re-marry, so she agreed. The whole thing blew up in her face about 3 years later; see the Overbury Scandal. The whole affair is much more complicated, of course (and is detailed in the two wiki-links above), but those are the bare bones. It's also one way to make your 'sorcerer' not appear repulsive. He's simply helping a desperate woman out of a horrible situation. A very good question. Every expert knows (or should know) enough that "you have to give them a show" -- in other words, when it comes to laymen, don't tell them anything you don't need them to know. Give them just enough to dazzle them, and they'll take you at your own estimation. It's only other experts that you have to be careful with. I also agree that, when it comes to the awe-inspiring nature of nature, humanity constantly understands new things and discards older explanations. As Leonard of Quirm says (in Terry Pratchett's The Last Hero, when the the Chief of the gods, Blind Io, asks him if he believes in gods): "I think I can say that I definitely believe in the gods ... I think I believe in the secret geometries, and the colours on the edge of light, and the marvellous in everything." He is unashamedly spiritual, but not religious (which nearly gets him in trouble with the gods of the Disc). He sees the birds, and tries to make machines capable of flight, etc. I've tried reading Iamblichus, but Taylor's style came across as very old-fashioned and almost impenetrable. I found Ancient Magic by Philip Matyszak much easier, at least as a primer. (As an aside, I very much recommend Dr Matyszak's books; he writes clearly and concisely, without oversimplifying complicated issues. As well as being a professional author, he also teaches ancient history at Cambridge. So he knows what he's talking about!)
Taylor’s style can be pretty wooden at times but as someone accustomed to reading creaky archaic translations I rate him about average I haven’t read any of Philip Matyszak books but I’ve heard a couple of interviews with him on Radio War Nerd and he comes across as a guy who knows his stuff deeply.
I own many books by Philip Matyszak (e.g. what would life as a legionary or gladiator be like? How would you travel across ancient Greece and Italy? The enemies of Rome - what were they like? Etc.) And yes, Phil definitely knows his stuff. He has a DPhil (majoring in ancient history) from Oxford, and after a career in journalism, he's been writing about the ancient world (specifically the ancient Greeks and Romans, and their surrounding world) for about 25 years. So, yes, I very much recommend his books.
Why do romances end happily? Why are mysteries solved? Genres have their conventions, and one convention of the sword & sorcery subgenre of fantasy is magic as at best a dangerous tool and at its worst an actively malevolent force. Part of my intent with this piece is to emulate the feel of classic sword & sorcery, and this is a key ingredient. Tolkien, Pratchett, Rowling, and Jones are all excellent, successful fantasy writers…but they didn’t write sword and sorcery. My usual fare is heroic fantasy. Most of my stories feature magic as a tool like any other. But that’s not what editors, publishers, or readers seeking sword and sorcery want. My stack of personal rejections from S&S markets that praise a story but specifically mention the magic not feeling ominous enough—and the acceptances those stories received from non-S&S markets—can testify to that. Selling a reader on an S&S atmosphere and not delivering on their expectations is likely to go down as well as selling them a genre romance without a happy ending or a whodunnit where we never find out who did it. This does have some nice subplot potential, especially as he looks to make allies at court who are actually his rather than his wife’s or his family’s. Ah, this looks like a fantastic resource. Thanks!
Ah, whoops! So ... you mean, you write something more like Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser sequence, or Michael Moorcock's Elric sequence. My apologies; I haven't looked at anything like that for ages. I only brought up Pratchett because his book, The Colour of Magic, reminded me a little of the Fafhrd books. (Of course, the Discworld series went off in its own direction not long after). This might also prove useful, from RPG.Net: What does Sword-and-Sorcery Style Magic Mean To You? It's probably not anything you haven't seen before, but it may help. Some ideas include: - Human sacrifice / blood sacrifice - Horrible pacts and rituals with demons - Great risk involved, high price to pay - Ritualistic, slow-to-cast magic that's very powerful without being too flashy -- so no fireballs or magic missiles! - Magic is dangerous and risky, and usually involves summoning or illusion - An S&S sorcerer is is (or pretends to be) a scholar or alchemist. His magic provides some personal abilities, like being unusually hard to kill, having a few zombie servants, or being able to dominate people (think Bela Lugosi). He is physically powerful, dangerously charming, and ruthless. And, of course ... - The jeweled thrones of the world shall be crushed beneath my sandaled feet. While we're at it, I always found this essay by Poul Anderson to be incredibly valuable: On Thud and Blunder, or making Heroic Fantasy make sense. (This is from the SFWA, or Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association of America).
Dude! I have talked about Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in here for ages, and I believe you're the first person who has ever read them besides me (or at least who has mentioned it). I love the way Lieber wrote—so full of whimsey and imagination. He had a way with words about on par with Tolkein and a few other of the great stylists. For a long time he was my favorite author, and that series will always remain near and dear to my heart. Of course this is where you say you barely read any of it and didn't care for it much.
@X Equestris —I keep returning to the notion that it might not be a good idea to have your POV character be a wizard or sorcerer if you want to keep magic and its practitioners mysterious and ominous. Maybe an apprentice? It just seems like if the reader sees the character from inside, you wouldn't be able to maintain that intensity or dark mystery. It seems like it would end up either trivializing the magic or making the character too dark and unrelatable. There's a reason the really charismatic or intense characters need to be seen from a distance, through the eyes of a Watson or a Professor Summerlee. I think it's true for any kind of iconic character. Take Jay Gatsby for instance. I'm not sure anyone could write a story from his own POV and make it really work.
More or less. I’m working my way through Leiber’s stuff (currently on Swords in the Mist), and Elric is on my TBR. Yeah, I found that thread early in my search for advice on this topic. Very helpful in summarizing the tone I’m looking for, less so in threading the needle with a sorcerous protagonist. That would certainly be the easiest route, and one tons of authors have taken. Of course, this is still an enemies-to-lovers romance underneath all the sword & sorcery tropes, so that limits alternative POVs. While the FMC is an option, writing exclusively from her perspective would be tricky, since this was conceived for the “romance for men” niche, which centers male romantic fantasies in the same way mainstream romance does for women. Not sure if that can be done without access to his POV. I’ve actually been leaning toward him being an apprentice or barely more, with a solid education in the basics that exceeds what he can actually do. Fits the best with his age and, as you say, it allows me to obscure the magic and keep him away from the nastiest stuff.
What I was thinking was more along the lines of your POV character being an apprentice, with the sorcerer being the one he's apprenticed to (hence references to Watson and Summerlee). But of course, I'm a total outsider getting just a minimal glimpse into your story, and you're far more familiar with it than I or any of us can be. There may be ways to approach it without diminishing the power and terrifying nature of magic, and without making him unrelatable. It seems like you'd need to have some kind of really clever way in. One possibility is to tell the story from the POV of the socrcerer's apprentice, with the sorcerer being actually the main character (or a main character).
I read the first 2 or 3 omnibus volumes that White Wolf published in the 90’s (with great cover art by Mike Mignola). I loved them. I also ran a Lankhmar AD&D campaign (TSR made excellent Lankhmar material) and it was huge fun. I’d been playing RPG’s for years but that was actually my first time playing D&D proper.
I bought those about a decade ago for reading from, because I didn't want to damage my original copies from the 60's or early 70's, which aren't faring very well (and also have beautiful cover art by Jeffrey Jones). I also discovered they're all on Archive.org. < That link should open the page with them on it. Ah crap, nevermind. They all seem to be "Log in and borrow," where you have to refresh every hour or it disappears. Not fun at all. But at least they can serve as an extended sample. Mignola also did a four issue graphic novel version that was excellent (as his work always is). I like it, but it just isn't the same with Lieber's powerful wordsmithery chopped down to a few bites here and there.
Normally, this route would work wonderfully. But in romance, audiences expect to be right there in the head of the romantic lead rather than sitting on the outside looking in. And that’s especially true of R4M. Maybe I’m overthinking how much moral concerns matter to romance readers. After all, one book I’m reading has the FMC poison her sisters to ensure her own survival. Later, it’s revealed it was a sedative rather than poison, but the reader is very much under the impression she just murdered all eleven of them for several chapters in between. The power fantasy might override any worries over right and wrong as long as we’re not talking about human sacrifice or something. The mystery and threat would still be a challenge, but I do have ideas on that front. Stuff like a sorcerer needing to be protected by geometric wards while astral projecting to prevent his body from being possessed by ghosts, demons, or other sorcerers; astral surveillance fostering a sense of paranoia, the need to keep hair, nails or blood from falling into the wrong hands, etc. My rough idea of the non-romantic conflict centers on the MMC stumbling onto hints of what the last court wizard was up to before he was killed by the FMC, who razed his tower (and library) afterwards. They all suggest a scheme grander than anything he can comprehend and that this scheme is still unfolding. This should help with establishing the desired tone.
An idea has struck. You could go ahead and embrace the loathsome nature of magic, and make your sorcerer a person able to deal with it (a somewhat loathsome person), but there are ways of making a less-than-decent person still relatable. We've seen it done up to a certain point in Breaking Bad for instance, and I'm sure in The Sopranos, though I haven't watched that one. Also in House, MD. Often there's a bad guy who's not as bad as the other bad guys, and so we root for him. Especially if he's a protagonist. But there are certain lines you don't want to cross, that would make him unrelatable and utterly unlikeable, like being a murderer, rapist, or other completely despicable type of person. He can deal with dead things, speak to corpses, etc, and even revel in it to an extent. Think about Edward Scissorhands as an example. A character who could have been really nasty and despicable, but he's actually likeable. It's because despite certain unsavory things about him, he's basically a decent person who has a scary look and can't help in some ways being involved in some strange goings-on. But he has his own code of honor, and he doesn't violate it. He's kind and friendly to people he knows and likes, but maybe not to his enemies, who are far worse people than him. OK, I don't think Edward had any enemies, but I'm talking in general here. I remember reading about characters like this somewhere, let me see if I can find it. It might have been in a book about Breaking Bad or House, or maybe on the Novel Writing Help website. I'll try to find it and report back.
Even these characters can be relatable. Take Dexter for example, we have a murderer as the MC. Yet we still root for him as he struggles to understand and fit into the society around him. His back story helped with this a great deal, with his police officer father guiding him away from random killings, and focusing him on the worst criminals.
They made it work with Dexter by making him only kill bad people. I haven't seen the show, but I think he was brainwashed or trained somehow to only kill people who really deserve it? That's to take the edge off, so he's a good murderer, sort of an executioner of the state. Plus I think they made him charming and personable? Again, I haven't seen it. But clearly it wouldn't have worked if he just wantonly killed decent human beings. Then he'd be the villain.
Dexter was a sociopath, whose father was a cop. His father taught him how not to get caught, by teaching him to choose bad guys as his targets. Much of the drama in the show is Dexter is his trying to understand how those around him think and fell. Along with his struggles to emulate them.
