I can see that. However, if you liked the writing and the worldbuilding, I do think you'll like #2. There's no pussyfooting around of that nature.

I may grab the sample off B&N.

Not only did that trope remind me of a hated SPN fic one, but her Trickster was very much like Gabriel to me. More than any other trickster I can recall reading/seeing recently. Which worked both for and against the book.

I am finally reading Cold Kiss, and I cannot get The Hush Sound song with that lyric out of my head!

And, I finished reading Cold Kiss. It was so good! I want to know more about the family now. (very late) Yay Amy!

Aw, yay, Sophia! And you will, in the next book!

Isn't that lyric perfect, though? First time I heard it, I thought, "Ooh, that's it, that's the song."

I've been re-reading The Pliocene Exile Saga by Julian May, and I really love it. I am a huge fan of her Galactic Milieu Trilogy (well, really Pentology), which is set in the same universe, as well. I think that a lot of you might enjoy the books - they are epic science fiction, with the central SF concept concerned with what the book calls meta-functions; telepathy, telekinesis, etc. I think she writes great characters (most of whom are decidedly NOT in the normal range of human psychology), and her stories are really quite grand in scope. The science isn't based on anything remotely realistic, as far as I know, but it still feels like hard SF, in that everything is internally consistent and logically thought out; this isn't The Force.

I read a series once I really enjoyed I considered "hard science" even though it was set in an alternate universe where alchemy worked, and it was the future of that universe with starships and supercities and what have all based on alchemical principles. Because it was done consistently and not treated as magic.

Because it was done consistently and not treated as magic

Where is it done inconsistently?

I just got into a way tl/dr; discussion with a guy who's insisting that magic is usually presented as something unknowable in fantasy, but I'm pretty sure that Gandalf understands his spells better than I understand my car. We don't get it, and the mundanes in the fantasy world don't get it, but wasn't a big point of HP watching him achieve a measure of expertise along with everything else as he grew up? And magic was treated as a repeatable predictable system as long as you knew what you were doing and had the requisite inborn talent?

(Which isn't an argument with you, TB, just a question raised from discussion elsewhere)

I just got into a way tl/dr; discussion with a guy who's insisting that magic is usually presented as something unknowable in fantasy

Not in books where the wizards/witches/sorcerors are protagonists.

In Wizard of Earthsea the magic is all about learning the true name/nature of things.

"consistently" is probably the wrong word. There is a difference between how Gandalf does magic and the way engineers do engineering. Or maybe not, but there is a difference in how they are presented. Le Guins world is closer, but the feel is still different. I suspect ultimately it is a styleistic difference - "hard science" fiction is a writing style. Heinlein's "Magic Incorporated" is IMO hard science fiction. Earthsea stylistically isn't. That explains Harry Potter - magic is very close to science in the way it works,but styleistically no. Also I will add that in all three examples inborn ability plays a huge role. Not just anyone can do magic in Rowlings world, or in Earthsea. Middle Earth - well talent certainly helps and I get the feeling that if you don't have inborn ability the only magic you will do is with magical artifacts. Not inherent, but very common in fantasy. Whereas in hard science fiction, talent matters, but most people can do at least mediocre science if they are willing to put in the work. Very common in fantasy for this not to be the case - again not universal.