Hacker News Reader

Comment by SXX | Hacker News Reader

No, but once he start to introduce some "magic" mechanics he literally describe it in details: how exactly it's works and looks like as if he was describing politicking. Also I took "magic" into quotes since in Cosmere books for the reader (!) it's always more like set of additional physics-like laws of world mechanics rather than some mystery.

View on HN

This is of course a matter of taste, but I really dislike this approach to magic/alchemy that Sanderson has. He's explained it before in an illuminating article [1] about his classification of magic systems in "Soft" (less explained, more arbitrary) vs "Hard" (more logical, there are clear/mechanical rules), and how he prefers the latter. I respect this, but I dislike it. To me, magic isn't rational or logical, and overexplanation ruins it. I prefer Tolkien's subtle approach that magic is unexplained, part of the song that made the world -- and in fact, to some of his characters "magic" is a puzzling word.

"Like a videogame" is an apt description of Sanderson's approach, and not my thing. Even Jack Vance's magic system of memorizing spells, used in his Dying Earth stories and said to have inspired the Dungeons & Dragons RPG system, is more mysterious and mystical than Sanderson's. Which is the way it should be!

[1] https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/

To me, "soft magic" is the same as "a hacker did it" that so many bad movies and TV shows use these days.

It doesn't really work that way in practice, though. Not in Tolkien or in other good fantasy works.

Good "soft" magic is mysterious and often unreliable. It sometimes comes with a price. Main characters often do not understand it and cannot use it, or they misuse it to terrifying or hilarious results (e.g. Cugel in The Eyes of the Overworld).

The supernatural must be unknowable, otherwise it simply turns into the natural.

"A wizard/hacker did it" is simply bad writing.

As you posted yourself it's matter of taste, but I for instance simply can't stand another "Gandalf come and save the day" situation because everyone except very good authors heavily abuse such tropes.

I perfectly fine with this kind of stuff in something like Discworld because of nature of these books and how I read them, but for epic fantasy with more or less serious themes I expect events to have logic behind them. Sanderson's books still have mysteries, but they just served by the ways other than generic "magic". So there is plenty of things to make theories about during and after reading.

Yes, of course, it's a matter of taste. I can't argue beyond "I like reading this and dislike reading that".

Ultimately, to me, literary fiction is NOT like programming, and it's not as easy to explain what works and what doesn't. Mystery and ambiguity are bad things in code but good in literature.

Which brings me full circle to why I dislike Sanderson's approach :)

Yeah, getting too far into the weeds is a quick way to make someone feel like they're reading a D&D rule book, especially if many pages are spent explaining rules that ultimately have no effect on the story.

At worst it turns your exciting adventure novel into a textbook for arcane effects practitioners.

It sounds like his writing would be better served if he just tacked on an appendix with all of the magical minutiae.

But by Sanderson's First Law, if it were in an appendix he wouldn't be able to use consequences of the rules in the story. Imagine I Robot if the laws of robotics were an optional appendix (although not quite that extreme).

FWIW, I didn't find it over-explained, but I tend towards systems naturally.

He does tack on an appendix, which adds in even more details. I personally like it, but I suppose I was also the kind of kid growing up who would be okay reading D&D rulebooks. :)

Or just stuff the rules in a fun footnotes when necessary. I've always been a fan of that technique personally, although I understand it is generally discouraged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com