Talk:The Saga of Recluce

First-person writing
Also used in the Magic Engineer. ralian 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? No, this is incorrect. The only books to use the first-person viewpoints are the Lerris ones (Magic of Recluce, Death of Chaos), as he's the narrator of the "main story" of Recluce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.88.98 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in wording
I made a minor change, because part did not make sense. The 15 books of the series describe the changing, often confrontational, relationship between the genetic descendants of two technologically advanced cultures, representatives of which have been marooned on a sparsely uninhabited world and regressed to the level of the existing inhabitants' primitive technology. is a paradox, since if the world was uninhabited, what previous inhabitants were there to be reduced to? Plus in the earliest prequal, they frequently talked down about the barbarians, who had been there before the arrival of the earliest ship. Mushrom (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"ill defined magic"
Modesitt's fantasy novels are known for their unusually rigorous system of magic, in contrast to typical fantasy universes where magic is ill-defined I think not only isn't that not from a source, it's also a very doubtful statement... while there is fantasy, where magic is "ill-defined" there is also a lot of fantasy, for which this is not true... The Wiz Biz series by Rick Cook comes to mind, or even the in many aspects similar "Alvin Maker". 129.13.250.75 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah. I would not consider the magic system in The Saga of Recluce or any of Modesitt's books that I've read to have well-defined, rigorous magic systems. Rather, they're quite vague. No, they're not as vague as something like Lord of the Rings where pretty much no rules are given at all, but compared to something like Brandon Sanderson's books - such as Mistborn - which give very precise rules about their magic systems, Modesitt's magic systems are incredibly vague. All the Saga of Recluce books tend to talk about is applying order or chaos to a situtation. How that is done, or how that works, or what you can ultimately do with either is not generally discussed - if at all. The magic system in The Saga of Recluce is based on two well-defined principles - order and chaos - and everything else about it is incredibly vague. There's nothing particularly rigorous about them at all. 76.224.230.228 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate timeframe for end of saga? (Resolved)
The climax of the story, 5 years later, in The Death of Chaos... I'm reading The Death of Chaos right now, and it appears that this book takes place 3 years after The Magic of Recluse, not 5. In the paperback version, early on (I can't find the reference right now), Lerris talks about having his third staff in as many years. Furthermore, on p. 336, the Countess of Montgren asks Justen, Is it almost as bad as three years ago? with respect to how many of her sheep are afflicted with chaos. And, again, on p. 339, Lerris talks about having opened the mountain roads to Sarronnyn 3 years earlier (than the present). Finally, on p. 589 Lerris comments on returning to Recluce near the end of the story, on the road after waking at Elisabet and Sardit's, Only a bit over three years--had it been such a short time? Does the statement on this page need to be changed to reflect that, or is there a different timeline somewhere that puts matters at 5 years separation?

Edit: Just wrote to Mr. Modesitt and received this response. The 5 year timespan begins with the beginning of The Saga of Recluce. It takes about a year and a half from the start of the book until Lerris leaves Recluce for Candar, then he spends a little more than three years in Candar: thus, the 5 year span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finelinebob (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mage vs Wizard
My understanding is that, except for occasional errors missed by Modesitt Jr's editor, whites are called wizards, while blacks and grays are called mages. The article currently speaks, mostly, in terms of white and black "mages". I began correcting this, then wondered if perhaps I was wrong. I stopped, leaving the job half-done. Are there opposing views on this? --Black Walnut (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the past year, my changes remained standing and no one responded to this comment. I take that as absence of objection. I completed the change: no more "chaos mages" -- they are now chaos *wizards*. --Black Walnut (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

table of titles
Why not combine the lists?

Is it The Towers of Sunset (as in the table) or The Towers of the Sunset (as in the publication list)? Wellspring of Chaos or The Wellspring of Chaos? The White Order or The White Order Mage? —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Series List: Publication or Chronological Order
The list currently defaults to chronological order. The text right above it says, "The author has stated that publication order is the appropriate reading order." Additionally, it is usually customary to default lists to publication order, not any in-world order, and readers can still sort it either way. I recommend converting the list to Publication Order. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reordered them by release year. [ diff]. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)