Most informative! Your explanations are clear and extremely well-supported by examples.
I've not read Sanderson on this subject, but I've heard a lot of debate on it over the years. I used to argue with one of my editors about magic because he had the presupposition that "magic always comes at a cost." But there are other ways to limit magic. In my books, the consequences tend to be more practical than arcane--the difficulty of living a normal life, for example. There's also a considerable risk factor, even if one is skillful, that the magic might somehow go wrong. And the more potent one's magic is, the more one tends to become a target for more powerful supernatural forces.
Anyway, I imagine the discussion of how to implement believable and easily understandable restrictions into magic will always be a popular subject. It is certainly critical to willing suspension of disbelief.
Thanks, Bill. That dynamic of “I’ve heard the debate but haven’t read Sanderson” is precisely why I wanted to root it back to narrative principles. It’s such a worthwhile subject to explore but I think the discourse is missing the forest for the trees.
On actual preference, I’m like you. I think I generally prefer the softer edges of magic than the harder limits.
Your elucidation on Sanderson's "laws" as actually referring to narrative and not worldbuilding is really good, but the conversation I'd like to have is the irreparable damage Sanderson's "laws" have had in terms of restricting and muddling magic aesthetics, presentation, and concept. The far-reaching notion, partly from wide misreading, and partly from poor communication on the author's behalf, that hard=science and soft=magic, that there must be cost, numbers, and so on. His "laws" may be good guides for narrative use, but as worldbuilding advice for those who simply enjoy the art of fleshing out a setting, I think they're atrocious.
I personally like to measure things by a Magic/Science metric to better describe authorial intent, presentation, and aesthetics. Magic, after all, is a word with a meaning.
If you ask me, his first law is by far the most useful. I think the second of his laws—limits are more interesting than powers—is based more on opinion on what he finds interesting than on fact, though again it has use for exposition and for shedding more light on the first law.
Anyway, I obviously agree that people have taken the spectrum too far or treat the categories too rigidly. And most of all they treat it as worldbuilding fact that harder magic is better and therefore everything becomes rigid and rules based. That’s precisely the kind of assumption I want to dispel.
And I hope to write a longer defense of soft magic systems. My own tastes lean that direction. Like you said, magic should be, you know, MAGIC.
Couldn't agree more about the second "law"! One of the best arguments I know against it is "The Face in the Frost" by John Bellairs from 1969. By pure vibes alone, the book gives a great sense of what the extent of the characters are capable of without spending any time whatsoever on mechanical exposition. It's fascinating because it's written almost with the structure of a horror story (it partly is one, which helps), with well-defined escalation of events and powers. You just get it.
I'd very much like to read a defense of "soft" magic in all its meanings if you do it!
Glad I'm not alone! Be it worldbuilding-wise or narrative-wise, I still think he's wrong, Eric's good article explaining what Sanderson couldn't aside. If you've ever read "The Face in the Frost" by John Bellairs, it makes for a good argument over smart writing being able to deliver implications of limits and mechanics through vibes than overt exposition.
I think we all have a natural tendency to tidy up and classify things in an attempt to better understand how to tell stories.
But where these tools like Sandersons rules may be used to find logical inconsistencies that may be confusing, they can also be taken out of context and misused.
For every person it helps, it stiffles someone else's creativity who takes it too literally, or worse, someone else judges it based on those strict criteria.
I think your interpretation is far more accurate, it is all a narrative tool in service of the reader, and it goes well beyond magic systems, it applies to how information is shared and ultimately, paid off, like cool medieval combat tactics.
Very good read! Thank you for putting it together.
Also, this happens all the time in Painting. Someone came up with the rule of thirds to aid composition, and I've heard people mindlessly parrot that someone elses painting had wrong composition because it did not follow that rule. That is worse than being ignorant if you ask me.
So true, Marco. The whole idea of narrative “rules” is that they are tools for post-creation analysis not pre-creation formulation. They can act as guideposts and can be extremely helpful in crafting a narrative—and I use the term “crafting” deliberately, in that it takes work and practice rather than just inspiration and emotion—but these rules are also insufficient as goals in themselves. The minute things like this become goals then they are essentially removed from their context, like you say. The rule of thirds is an excellent example.
Good article, Eric. I actually struggle with Sanderson because I find his writing too formulaic to the point where his magic systems feel too forced to me. So you could say I prefer soft magic and finding other ways to level the playing field.
This was a great explanation though, and a(nother) useful signpost that foreshadowing (which is effectively how I read this) is so important.
Thanks, AJ. That’s certainly a common critique of Sanderson and a valid one I think—even if some of it boils down to taste. I likewise prefer softer magic.
Foreshadowing is a great way to look at it. Now that you mention it I’m surprised that word didn’t make it into the post haha 😅
This is a good explanation! I had it professionally explained to me in a college course and I still don't see anything you left out.
What I really like about Sanderson's style is that shift you talk about. The rules APPEAR to change, but we actually just didn't have the full picture, solidifying your point about the storytelling being the emphasis. This is what I see missing in a lot of new writers' work—a lot of my classmates in particular would focus so much on developing the system that they'd forget that it's meant to serve the story, not the other way around. One of my writing teachers actually banned fantasy and sci-fi from her class for that exact reason. (And my fantasy writing benefited from her lessons anyway.)
My world would be difficult to label as hard or soft magic I think, because there are detailed explanations for how things are supposed to work, but part of the point of the story is that the magic doesn't always work the way it's "supposed to" according to the characters. For example, everyone in the world has a spark that gives them one particular ability that they must spend years training to unlock. But among the main trio, one doesn't have a spark, one has two sparks, and one is already powerful without training. (In my notes I have explanations for most of it, but I don't want to reveal everything right away. 😉)
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of the terms Hard and Soft when used specifically to describe Magic systems, but it makes a good deal of sense now that I am.
"The storyteller must exposit the tools before the characters can use them in satisfying ways"
This is literary gold and genre agnostic as well. Slightly changing the terminology to something like rules or guidelines and everything works from a science fiction perspective as well.
Exactly! All the commentary about magic this and magic that… it really just stems from solid narrative principles. When you keep that in mind, the framework expands significantly beyond the genre
This was definitely an eye opener and very helpful. You have a good explanation style and even though the article is in depth, it didn't feel very long.
When you defined hard magic, I immediately thought of FMA and The Last Airbender. Get out of my head, bro.
But seriously, this post was very helpful in understanding one of my stories. I still don't know exactly where it falls, but based off of this post the concepts leans more magical, in my opinion.
Haha! Well FMA and ATLA are very common hard magic examples for a reason. They’re clearly understood and widely known.
Happy to hear this was helpful to you. Remember, it’s not about finding exactly where you might line up and more about getting the right balance of exposition in the narrative—and that exposition will flow from how central magic use is to the story’s major plot points.
As an avid video game player and who LOVES and has played through most of Square's Final Fantasy series of games (My top two favorites are Ff 6 and 12), this applies to fantasy video games very well.
It does! I couldn’t find the right place to highlight that but I’m glad you noticed it. The worldbuilding aspects of video game magic might be unexplained but the rules and limits of magic have to be very well explained in video games or else there’s no gameplay! That’s why the hardest magic in fantasy often reads like a video game in book format.
The LitRPG subgenre often is a video game in book format! There's a decent amount of range in the genre, though: some will track stats and whatnot, but the magic is very soft; others make central plot points out of characters crunching numbers to "break the game/system", and the hardness of the magic is the central part of the fantasy.
That said, as a subgenre, it is the poster child for sacrificing quality of writing on the altar of self-insert power fantasy in a hard magic system.
Really good stuff here, Eric. Love the emphasis on bringing everything back to the narrative. I think there’s room for deus ex machina use of magic but more so in literary fantasy where character development is focused on. I really like those moments when a character is about to be overwhelmed and someone comes out of nowhere to save them. It doesn’t cheapen the story because it’s not about the plot. I think LOTR has a lot of little moments like this. Like in the movies when Arwen shows up in Fellowship to help. It emphasizes how small the hobbits are in the world but also how many powerful friends they have. I think Gandalf’s resurrection is like that. He is DEM’d by some power we don’t understand fully but that’s not the point. I think the little people watching big things happen around them feels true to life as long as it doesn’t go too far. Thank you very much for writing this!
I really started reading this article for the cute dog picture, but it is incredible! Such a good explanation of what I think Sanderson was trying to say. I had not read the article but listened to a lecture he gave on the topic that basically came down to a lot of what you said. As another commenter said, it really is all about foreshadowing. Without proper foreshadowing of a character's abilities, any way that they try to solve a problem will seem like a cop out, whether it involves magic or not.
Most informative! Your explanations are clear and extremely well-supported by examples.
I've not read Sanderson on this subject, but I've heard a lot of debate on it over the years. I used to argue with one of my editors about magic because he had the presupposition that "magic always comes at a cost." But there are other ways to limit magic. In my books, the consequences tend to be more practical than arcane--the difficulty of living a normal life, for example. There's also a considerable risk factor, even if one is skillful, that the magic might somehow go wrong. And the more potent one's magic is, the more one tends to become a target for more powerful supernatural forces.
Anyway, I imagine the discussion of how to implement believable and easily understandable restrictions into magic will always be a popular subject. It is certainly critical to willing suspension of disbelief.
Thanks, Bill. That dynamic of “I’ve heard the debate but haven’t read Sanderson” is precisely why I wanted to root it back to narrative principles. It’s such a worthwhile subject to explore but I think the discourse is missing the forest for the trees.
On actual preference, I’m like you. I think I generally prefer the softer edges of magic than the harder limits.
Your elucidation on Sanderson's "laws" as actually referring to narrative and not worldbuilding is really good, but the conversation I'd like to have is the irreparable damage Sanderson's "laws" have had in terms of restricting and muddling magic aesthetics, presentation, and concept. The far-reaching notion, partly from wide misreading, and partly from poor communication on the author's behalf, that hard=science and soft=magic, that there must be cost, numbers, and so on. His "laws" may be good guides for narrative use, but as worldbuilding advice for those who simply enjoy the art of fleshing out a setting, I think they're atrocious.
I personally like to measure things by a Magic/Science metric to better describe authorial intent, presentation, and aesthetics. Magic, after all, is a word with a meaning.
If you ask me, his first law is by far the most useful. I think the second of his laws—limits are more interesting than powers—is based more on opinion on what he finds interesting than on fact, though again it has use for exposition and for shedding more light on the first law.
Anyway, I obviously agree that people have taken the spectrum too far or treat the categories too rigidly. And most of all they treat it as worldbuilding fact that harder magic is better and therefore everything becomes rigid and rules based. That’s precisely the kind of assumption I want to dispel.
And I hope to write a longer defense of soft magic systems. My own tastes lean that direction. Like you said, magic should be, you know, MAGIC.
Couldn't agree more about the second "law"! One of the best arguments I know against it is "The Face in the Frost" by John Bellairs from 1969. By pure vibes alone, the book gives a great sense of what the extent of the characters are capable of without spending any time whatsoever on mechanical exposition. It's fascinating because it's written almost with the structure of a horror story (it partly is one, which helps), with well-defined escalation of events and powers. You just get it.
I'd very much like to read a defense of "soft" magic in all its meanings if you do it!
When you mentioned the damage Sanderson has done to the genre I gasped and slammed that <3 so hard.
His thoughts on magic are great on the surface, especially for new writers but they can be easily misunderstood
Glad I'm not alone! Be it worldbuilding-wise or narrative-wise, I still think he's wrong, Eric's good article explaining what Sanderson couldn't aside. If you've ever read "The Face in the Frost" by John Bellairs, it makes for a good argument over smart writing being able to deliver implications of limits and mechanics through vibes than overt exposition.
I think we all have a natural tendency to tidy up and classify things in an attempt to better understand how to tell stories.
But where these tools like Sandersons rules may be used to find logical inconsistencies that may be confusing, they can also be taken out of context and misused.
For every person it helps, it stiffles someone else's creativity who takes it too literally, or worse, someone else judges it based on those strict criteria.
I think your interpretation is far more accurate, it is all a narrative tool in service of the reader, and it goes well beyond magic systems, it applies to how information is shared and ultimately, paid off, like cool medieval combat tactics.
Very good read! Thank you for putting it together.
Also, this happens all the time in Painting. Someone came up with the rule of thirds to aid composition, and I've heard people mindlessly parrot that someone elses painting had wrong composition because it did not follow that rule. That is worse than being ignorant if you ask me.
So true, Marco. The whole idea of narrative “rules” is that they are tools for post-creation analysis not pre-creation formulation. They can act as guideposts and can be extremely helpful in crafting a narrative—and I use the term “crafting” deliberately, in that it takes work and practice rather than just inspiration and emotion—but these rules are also insufficient as goals in themselves. The minute things like this become goals then they are essentially removed from their context, like you say. The rule of thirds is an excellent example.
I enjoy these analyses so much that one day I might even write some fantasy!
I thought of you, Beth, when I was thinking about this around more spec-fic sci fi tech :)
Excellent article. I think you fully explain what many get wrong about Sanderson’s rules.
Thanks, JJ!
Good article, Eric. I actually struggle with Sanderson because I find his writing too formulaic to the point where his magic systems feel too forced to me. So you could say I prefer soft magic and finding other ways to level the playing field.
This was a great explanation though, and a(nother) useful signpost that foreshadowing (which is effectively how I read this) is so important.
Keep these coming.
Thanks, AJ. That’s certainly a common critique of Sanderson and a valid one I think—even if some of it boils down to taste. I likewise prefer softer magic.
Foreshadowing is a great way to look at it. Now that you mention it I’m surprised that word didn’t make it into the post haha 😅
This is a good explanation! I had it professionally explained to me in a college course and I still don't see anything you left out.
What I really like about Sanderson's style is that shift you talk about. The rules APPEAR to change, but we actually just didn't have the full picture, solidifying your point about the storytelling being the emphasis. This is what I see missing in a lot of new writers' work—a lot of my classmates in particular would focus so much on developing the system that they'd forget that it's meant to serve the story, not the other way around. One of my writing teachers actually banned fantasy and sci-fi from her class for that exact reason. (And my fantasy writing benefited from her lessons anyway.)
My world would be difficult to label as hard or soft magic I think, because there are detailed explanations for how things are supposed to work, but part of the point of the story is that the magic doesn't always work the way it's "supposed to" according to the characters. For example, everyone in the world has a spark that gives them one particular ability that they must spend years training to unlock. But among the main trio, one doesn't have a spark, one has two sparks, and one is already powerful without training. (In my notes I have explanations for most of it, but I don't want to reveal everything right away. 😉)
Thanks for taking the time to write this out!
Great overview, and I enjoyed the new thoughts on the subject, Eric! I fully agree that it’s about narrative, not worldbuilding!
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of the terms Hard and Soft when used specifically to describe Magic systems, but it makes a good deal of sense now that I am.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for reading
"The storyteller must exposit the tools before the characters can use them in satisfying ways"
This is literary gold and genre agnostic as well. Slightly changing the terminology to something like rules or guidelines and everything works from a science fiction perspective as well.
Exactly! All the commentary about magic this and magic that… it really just stems from solid narrative principles. When you keep that in mind, the framework expands significantly beyond the genre
This was definitely an eye opener and very helpful. You have a good explanation style and even though the article is in depth, it didn't feel very long.
A true compliment! Thanks! Happy to help. I love getting explain things like this
When you defined hard magic, I immediately thought of FMA and The Last Airbender. Get out of my head, bro.
But seriously, this post was very helpful in understanding one of my stories. I still don't know exactly where it falls, but based off of this post the concepts leans more magical, in my opinion.
Thank you for your thoughts!
Haha! Well FMA and ATLA are very common hard magic examples for a reason. They’re clearly understood and widely known.
Happy to hear this was helpful to you. Remember, it’s not about finding exactly where you might line up and more about getting the right balance of exposition in the narrative—and that exposition will flow from how central magic use is to the story’s major plot points.
As an avid video game player and who LOVES and has played through most of Square's Final Fantasy series of games (My top two favorites are Ff 6 and 12), this applies to fantasy video games very well.
It does! I couldn’t find the right place to highlight that but I’m glad you noticed it. The worldbuilding aspects of video game magic might be unexplained but the rules and limits of magic have to be very well explained in video games or else there’s no gameplay! That’s why the hardest magic in fantasy often reads like a video game in book format.
The LitRPG subgenre often is a video game in book format! There's a decent amount of range in the genre, though: some will track stats and whatnot, but the magic is very soft; others make central plot points out of characters crunching numbers to "break the game/system", and the hardness of the magic is the central part of the fantasy.
That said, as a subgenre, it is the poster child for sacrificing quality of writing on the altar of self-insert power fantasy in a hard magic system.
Huh. So THATs what LitRPG means. What you say about the spectrum of magic in those conventions makes a lot of sense…
Well, not strictly. It's any gameified fiction, typically in the fantasy/science fiction genres.
Really good stuff here, Eric. Love the emphasis on bringing everything back to the narrative. I think there’s room for deus ex machina use of magic but more so in literary fantasy where character development is focused on. I really like those moments when a character is about to be overwhelmed and someone comes out of nowhere to save them. It doesn’t cheapen the story because it’s not about the plot. I think LOTR has a lot of little moments like this. Like in the movies when Arwen shows up in Fellowship to help. It emphasizes how small the hobbits are in the world but also how many powerful friends they have. I think Gandalf’s resurrection is like that. He is DEM’d by some power we don’t understand fully but that’s not the point. I think the little people watching big things happen around them feels true to life as long as it doesn’t go too far. Thank you very much for writing this!
Perfect timing to find this for me. This is gonna be so useful to consider during the developmental edits in the book I’m writing.
I really started reading this article for the cute dog picture, but it is incredible! Such a good explanation of what I think Sanderson was trying to say. I had not read the article but listened to a lecture he gave on the topic that basically came down to a lot of what you said. As another commenter said, it really is all about foreshadowing. Without proper foreshadowing of a character's abilities, any way that they try to solve a problem will seem like a cop out, whether it involves magic or not.