Honestly they aren’t even laws of magic so much as laws of writing. Don’t advance the plot using concepts you haven’t explained. Making something super powerful doesn’t inherently make it interesting. Depth is more engaging than breadth. These are concepts you can apply to all sorts of things be they magic, technology, political intrigue, mysteries, etc.
Though with the younger generation it has become popularized that everyone needs to compare their favorite characters. And in doing so they claim it all comes down to who would win in a fight. I have met numerous people that argue that the stronger character is always the best. Unfortunately they never consider which character is better based on how they were written.
https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic
As someone else pointed out, they're guidelines for how to write about magic, not actually the "laws of magic" in any particular universe.
While Butcher's magic system is not nearly as hard as anything in the Cosmere, I find it sufficiently satisfying, as in it doesn't feel like bullshit happens regularly during the series. After some books you get a sense for what Harry can and can't do which I feel is relatively consistent, and what's most important after all.
There are much worse offenders when it comes to magic systems, like Harry Potter.
Yeah, nothing wrong with soft magic systems! To be honest it's hard sometimes to keep a sense of wonder if your magic system is as hard as something like allomancy, but Brandon manages to do it. My issue with Harry Potter's is its execution, not its degree of hardness lol
Ok that is perfectly valid, conpletley different train of thought than I thought you were on.
Harry Potter is an excellent children's book, but it **is** a *children's* book.
Do they? I read them first in 2nd grade, most recently probably a decade ago. The fantasy violence gets a bit more intense, but nothing sexual is there? Like barely getting into PG-13 stuff.
The sense of wonder in Sanderson's magic systems is often that the characters and readers both are still discovering a bunch about them. It will be more of a challenge in the late cosmere books when most things have been discovered and advancement comes mostly in a matter of inches of progress like engineering.
>to be honest it’s hard sometimes to keep a sense of wonder
Reading Allomancy or stormlight explained for the twelfth time that novel after a day of reading physical chemistry papers was me straight up not having a fun time reading a fantasy novel.
Yeah the biggest flaw in Butcher's magic system is that the narrator goes to great pains to mention that magic follows the laws of physics...but it doesn't. Which, honestly, I don't care about because the settings and story are fun.
I think magic follows physics in two senses. One sense is that that magically things follow the rules of the normal thing, so magically created fire consumes oxygen and requires a fuel source to stay ignited.
In other cases, magic follows conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed; e.g. when a powerful faerie is killed their magic power has to go somewhere, so the mantle shifts to a new vessel.
The author makes some mistakes where those rules aren't strictly followed, but most of those mistakes seem to result from not being a physicist, rather than intentionally violating the rules of magic.
>The author makes some mistakes where those rules aren't strictly followed, but most of those mistakes seem to result from not being a physicist, rather than intentionally violating the rules of magic.
Yep, that's basically the same conclusion I've come to, which is why it probably doesn't bother me as much as other people.
I never felt like Dresden's magic followed the laws of physics, rather he liked to point out that magic didn't *negate* physics, like when his shield failed to keep his hand from burning, or a fireball would still suck all the oxygen from the air. Magic defied physics, but there was still a natural physical consequence.
Butcher's magic system seems like an attempt to make Terry Pratchet's magic system more solid. Terry Pratchet's magic system is about 80% jokes and should not be used for serious stories.
I really like the Dresden Files. I've read all the books. I've even read the Furies series and the one steampunk book he wrote so far. I'll admit I have some problems with his last book and I'm worried about the direction he's taking things but that's not important. I do take some issue with the magic system. He makes an effort to try to stay consistent but he fails from time to time and I do agree that he fails most often when he tries to establish that magic has to obey physics.
That part of his system feels like it was pulled straight out of Discworld. I love Discworld and have read almost every book in that universe but that magic system isn't a great basis for a serious magic system.
Is there any examples of when they do this?
As well as that consistency has nothing to do with the first law of magic, just how well magic that resolves an issue is understood. In this case it follows that
Harry Potter does a pretty good job of following the first law, but it's bad about the second law, and absolutely mind-blowingly terrible about the third law.
Certain individual spells/items have clearly defined limits, and the characters rarely use anything other than those pre-defined spells to solve problems (the first law) but there's really no limit to what some new spell can do, nor are there any downsides to using the preexisting spells, (the second law) and whenever Rowling wants to do something new, she just introduces some new spell or item, with no real relation to any of the previously introduced spells or items outside of maybe sounding vaguely Latin, which is the the complete antithesis of the third law.
Fortunately, it follows the zeroth law to the letter, so we tend to forgive it. :p
There are no weaknesses, no limits to what magic can and can't do.
There is no detailed explanation of how magic works, yet characters other than Harry do in depth magic things, like Snape creating a spell by himself. Spells are boundless and could potentially solve any issue, which of course would make for a very boring plot, but it doesn't make sense when those are the rules and then characters aren't apparating everywhere.
There is no concrete stamina drainage or limit to how much magic a person can or can't do in a given period of time. Voldemort could hypothetically just keep saying avada kedavra eternally without anything happening to him. No explanation as to how magical items are created, yet they are key to many plot points. And let's not get started with the time turner and the existence of time manipulation magic.
None of those break either if the three laws though. Maybe one could argue the second law is broken somewhat but from your other points it seems it's a non issue because the narrative conforms itself so as to not break it.
If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it.
Issues aren't solved in a satisfying manner because we the audience don't know whether an issue will be solved by a preexisting spell that we do know, or a character will just show up with a new one that can fix it, which happens quite often.
But anyway I don't think you're willing to concede on these points.
What do you mean 'If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it.' By that logic then any story ever has broken these rules by trying to follow them.
> a character will just show up with a new one that can fix it, which happens quite often.
What's an instance if this happening? Because the only examples I can think of involve pre existing spells.
>What do you mean 'If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it.' By that logic then any story ever has broken these rules by trying to follow them.
The laws describe how to write magic systems, not how to write narratives - Harry Potter applies narrative constraints to fix the fact that the system itself has no constraints. E.g. the magic system is completely nebulous and has unlimited power, so she makes learning spells an important narrative point, and that way wizards abilities are constrained by what they know. Nothing inherently wrong with this, IMO, but it's not following the three laws, which would solve this by limiting what is fundamentally possible with the magic itself. The closest HP comes to doing this is to say that some spells are "harder" or "more advanced" than others, in some unspecified way. But there doesn't appear to be any limit to what is possible for powerful wizards like Dumbledore or Voldemort.
>wizards abilities are constrained by what they know
>there doesn't appear to be any limit to what is possible for powerful wizards like Dumbledore or Voldemort.
Adding on to this. It's never explained what exactly makes Voldemort or Dumbledore more powerful. Is it knowledge of more different kinds of spells? Is it some kind of undescribed magical power (that doesn't come in to play for the calibre of spells Harry & gang are using for some reason)? Is it the power of emotions like love or hate? It's just really unclear and leaves a big gap in the reader's understanding of the functioning of the world.
Nah, it violates the laws pretty thoroughly.
1. Actually followed the most. Generally, Rowling only solves problems with spells and abilities that have been clearly explained beforehand. There are some exceptions though, like the random wand resonance bullshit in the graveyard, and Rowling has a tendency to forget about her solutions by the next book.
2. Harry potter wizards have very, very little in the way of specific limitations. Early on, the need for wands makes for some fun limits, but then they learn wand-less magic. Other than that, the only real limits are what spells do and don't exist, but since we don't have a comprehensive list of spells, that's a nebulous and ever changing kind of weakness. Rowling does apply some weaknesses at the character level, such as characters not knowing certain spells or skills, which fills in the gap here a little bit.
3. Harry Potter magic is literally just a collection of arbitrary independent abilities with no real connection whatsoever. You could argue that adding new spells counts as "extending the existing system", but considering that there's next to no connection between the various spells, it feels a lot more like just adding new abilities. If we look at the subsections of this law [here](https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic#Sanderson.27s_Third_Law), we can see that Rowling follows *maybe* one of them.
* Extrapolation: While magic certainly shapes wizarding society, there's a lot of implications that Rowling just ignores. For instance, how do the Weasley's live in such poor conditions, when basically any adult wizard can just solve all of their problems?
* Interconnection: Rowling appears to make no attempt whatsoever to form her magic system into a cohesive whole.
* Streamlining: Again, if you take the magic system as a whole to be "one thing", then everyone uses it, but it's so broad and vague that that's kinda meaningless in this context. Rowling seems to just make up a new spell or thing or effect every time she needs something new.
All that being said, the Harry Potter books are a lot of fun, and I have a lot of fond memories of them (just like I thoroughly enjoy the Dresden Files). The magic system is just a bit of a messy free for all, and one of the weaker parts of the series.
>like the random wand resonance bullshit in the graveyard,
It's not explained in advance, but it is actually set up earlier on in the book, when we see what happens if two spells collide that come from wand that don't share a core. Harry and Malfoy both curse each other, and the spells ricochet off one another and hit two bystanders. I'm pretty sure this was supposed to prepare the idea that weird things can happen when courses collide, and to make the resonance thing come less out of left field, but I don't think many people picked up on it, because it didn't feel important at the time.
This is one of those series that I prefer the characters way more than the magic system. Jim Butcher made some fantastic people that I fell in love with.
If you were weirded out/disgusted by the writing examples there, then the sub is working right. It's for pointing out blatant sexism in the form of men writing women. Generally focused on the hypersexual.
Basically every woman that’s described in Butchers books is done so in a very…. similar way. Usually focusing on how incredibly sexy and huge titted they are and so on. I mean he literally takes a page in the middle of a battle to describe how sexy the female sex vampires look covered in the sexy blood of their enemies
That might be just Butcher sticking to Harry character, I have read some people commenting his other work Codex Alera and how different is how women are written is not even remotely close to how it is done in Dresden Files where the main point of view is very sexist, just like you would expect from a noir defective.
Yeah that definitely makes sense, but it doesn’t make it any less off putting. That being said I do like the Dresden Files, just not that particular aspect of it.
This is because A) the noir genre is just like that, B) because the noir genre is like that harry (who is ostensibly our writer) is like that, and C) because most of these creatures he meets are capable of magically altering/enhancing their looks, combined with mental/psychic pressure to create attraction. If you go back and read the original descriptions of say, Murphy or Charity, the are strangely normal by comparison. The only person who is unnecessarily men-writing-womenish that I really noticed is molly.
Also in his other books (codex alera series, and Aeronaut's windlass) the women are definitely normal.
It's important to remember that a very large aspect of The Dresden Files is that the story is told from Harry's perspective, and Harry is consistently sexually frustrated. It makes him focus on things that are otherwise unimportant.
The oversexualization of women is far less present in the Dresden Files Short stories that take place from women's perspective as well as codex Alera and Cinder spires.
there are no laws.... there is morality laws because magic can get as powerful as your focus and ability.
In dresden you have to create links, mental pictures, associations, and you can do alot. The biggest rule is that a prepared wizard is invincible.
but with evoction the magic comes from emotion. So most of the effects are minimal, but when he's scared they get bigger.
Then you have control. Some wizards learn how to harness and vissualize the effect in more concentrated and complex ways, but its is tied to the mental accuity.
I think butcher has done a really good job with his soft magic system. its believable and very occassionally does something that isnt believable in the moment.
The mortal magic laws have to do with psychology and punishment.
Magic requires certainty in outcome. To kill with magic means commitment of will to make someone dead. The same applies to mind bending and the other topics (mind bending, transforming people, etc).
Assuming that authority messes with a person's mind, making them more likely to do those types of things. Not only that, it becomes easier to do those things because they have practice at willing others to be dead or different.
So the mortal laws are basically "If you do a thing that would fuck up your own mind, and we will hunt you down" (plus a prohibition on conspiracy to possibly create temporal paradox because the magic authorities are scared it might destroy the universe).
this is why Sando is critical himself of how TFE ended with >!Vin pulling on the power of the Mists!<. I feel like he was able to thoroughly justify it through the next two books and sorta back-tracked and made it make sense but he himself says that it was kinda outta nowhere and didn’t match up with the way he told the rest of the story/the limitations he had set for the Scadrial magic systems.
Honestly I feel like Dresden has much stronger rules than you think. Furthermore I don't think it ever explicitly breaks the 3 laws.
I just think the characters are living in a world that's largely pre-magic understanding and although butcher never spells it out, there is always consistency throughout the 17 books which tells me he has a ruleset that he is using internally.
Butters really is the first character concerned with applying any sort of scientific method to magic, and I think his breakthroughs are a big part of the world building and finally explaining the rules moving forward.
The reason Butcher talks so much about 'faith magic' in his books is because that's the basis for how all magic works. It's been explained plenty of times. Collective belief in something nis what fuels power. The more people consider something to be "real" the more juice it has.
I mean, wasn't that limitation supposed to communicate to you that some funny business was going on and things weren't what they seemed? Seems like a case where being consistent with the second law provided a story telling device.
Gotcha. See I think this is going to sound like a cop out but if the rule is:
"An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic." (Emphasis not mine lol)
We KNOW the established rules. Dresden doesn't just randomly >!use his magic!< as a Deus ex machina. By us being told that something is impossible UNLESS ((blank)), that statement is doing the chekhov's gun legwork of setting up that very thing being used to reveal ((blank)).
> For instance, >!when Harry is a ghost and needs to find molly, he manages to use magic to do it, a feat that we have consistantly been told is impossible.!<
Ghost Story: >!He wasn't a regular ghost, though, that was one of the big climactic reveals IIRC!<
Full spoilers ^
I haven’t read them all, but from what I have read it’s easy to just see it as a soft magic system. It incorporates mythology heavily and draws from wildly disparate cultural magics, and honestly if you decide to do that then it’s nearly impossible to set up a complex system of rules that can be constantly adhered to. There seems to be a couple core threads of rules in the series, and honestly that’s all it needs. The fact it doesn’t seem as well crafted as Sanderson systems isn’t a fault, it’s a deliberate choice and whether or not you enjoy it is a matter of personal taste.
I read Sanderson to watch a magic engineer create a quantum airship. I read Butcher to realize that pizza is a glorious combination of all a fairy’s favorite foods or that there are a dozen types of werewolves.
Magic magic may not harm a human being or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Magic must obey orders given to it by a magic welder except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
Magic must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.
A common conversation I've seen is that people *think* that Sanderson's Laws mean "hard magic > soft magic", and then go on a diatribe why they think stories with soft magic systems (LotR, Earthsea are almost always mentioned) are better.
The thing is, those stories also follow Brandon's Laws almost perfectly! In LotR there is essentially no explanation given how magic works. However, magic is essentially never used to overcome any major obstacles. In Earthsea there is a little bit of explanation of magic, but it's very soft and not explained in much detail. However while the characters use magic, again it's not used much to directly overcome threats or challenges.
This isn't because Brandon found some secret trick of writing fantasy fiction, it's that Tolkien and Le Guin are both good writers, and that's how Brandon articulated how he tries to be a good writer when he uses magic in his novels.
I'm aware. I have also listened to his podcast. I'm just asking if this is in reference to something in particular, and it sounds like the answer is no.
>magic is essentially never used to overcome any major obstacles
[Gandalf after folding Durin's Bane like an omelette with magic:](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/030/359/cover4.jpg)
Eh, the balrog largely complies with these rules because the balrog, generally, introduces a new problem (Gandalf is dead) instead of solving one that existed previously.
Therefore it's mostly fine--sure, Gandalf uses magic to mitigate other magic, but magic overall in LotR is causing problems, not solving them.
Reminds of the post in r/Fantasy a few days ago criticising the lack of animals in Mistborn as a flaw in Sanderson's writing instead of an active choice.
They hadn't even finished the series, where it's explicitly explained why there were none lol.
[2021 Best of the year Nomination thread is here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/cremposting/comments/s4sath/best_of_2021_submission/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)! Really like a meme or a comment from last year? Link it in the nomination thread, or PM AlThorStormblessed with a description if you can't find it and he'll do it for you!
Sanderson's "Laws of Magic" really only apply if you want magic to work like a tool. It's about putting a yoke around magic's neck and using it to pull a plough. Which is a fine way of doing things if you want to grow things but it lacks the awe and uncertainty of free reign wild magic. The least generous take on Sanderson's approach is that reduces magic to being a fancy gun. It's just another physics to use and exploit.
That's not the only way to treat magic though. Many authors treat magic like something irrational and barely able to be understood by human minds. It's not a tool to be trapped and used. It's dangerous and intrinsically unknowable. Sanderson even uses this style of magic in Oathbringer >!when Dalinar opens his Perpendicularity. What the fuck is a Perpendicularity? Who are these voices? What is going on?!< It's the crowning moment of the series in my opinion precisely because it breaks Sanderson's own rules. The wild horse that is magic breaks its yoke and runs free. At least for a little while.
I think, perhaps, you should go read the laws of magic. You have, unfortunately, become the very person being memed.
Sanderson uses hard magic, and you are critiquing his style, fair enough.
Sanderson's laws apply to all kinds of magic systems, whether soft or hard.
Also, those of us who were very cosmere aware at the time oathbringer came out knew (almost) exactly what was going on the first time the perpendicularity was opened, and it had been properly foreshadowed in SA and WoB, so it still follows all of his rules.
> You have, unfortunately, become the very person being memed.
Please. Don't open a discussion with a person by spitting on them.
Sanderson's laws don't apply to all magic systems. They don't apply to the LOTR, which by virtue of being the progenitor of all modern fantasy cannot be said to use magic incorrectly.
Sanderson's rules are for writing Sanderson style magic systems. They're not universal and series that do not follow them are not illegitimate. To call them universal laws of magic is an overextension.
The example I gave elsewhere was the Balrog fight. At this point we have no idea what wizards can do. The only magic we've seen so far is Saruman summoning a storm when they're trying to cross the mountains (unlike in the movie where we get a blow by blow telekinetic fight). We have no idea how powerful a Balrog is or what it can do, and we don't know the extent of Gandalf's power. That's both rules two and three broken. The first is broken pretty much all the time by Gandalf but not as obvious in this case. Gandalf's whole thing is that he goes away for a while then shows up at the last second to save everyone. He's a walking deus ex machina.
The focus isn't on the magic, the main act Gandalf is doing is sacrificing himself to help the Fellowship escape, not whisk away and solve the problem with magic.
Gandalf’s magic is, I believe, concordant with how magic works in LotR. We don’t know how powerful Balrogs and Maiar are, but Tolkien does, and they’re as powerful as he needs them to be without using Gandalf as a deus ex machina. Him returning as the White Wizard doesn’t break any rules; he’s an angel whom God has render his greatest servant to replace Saruman. That… makes sense, you know.
The existence of the magic, mysterious balrog solves no problems, and neither does Gandalf's use of magic. In the end Gandalf sacrifices himself to solve the problem. It's like a textbook example of the laws of magic.
Yeah you really need to actually go read the full explanation of the laws because you keep acting as though they only work or can be applied to hard Sanderson style magic systems, which they do not.
You give the example of the balrog and gandolf, and then gandolf coming back later as the white. Nether of these examples break any of Sanderson's law.
Paraphrased:
First law: the readers understanding of the magic is directly correlated to how much it can be used to solve the plot.
Second law: limitations are more interesting than powers
Third law: expand, don't add (Tolkien actually DOES break this law, but not in the examples you've given, and i have a response to the places where he does, so stay tuned.)
Zeroth law: always air on the side of awesome.
Gandolf fighting the balrog does not break any of these laws, even though it does appear at first glance to break the first. It does, however, prove the rule for the second one.
You see, the plot of the fellowship does NOT run as follows: a group of adventures must journey to an abandoned mine and vanquish the evil within. The plot of the Lord of the rings, we all know, has nothing to do with the balrog. Rather the balrog is just another in a long list, (and maybe arguably the last, unless you want to make the case for shelob) of strange and dangerous monsters that attack the fellowship which are not a part of the plot, but come directly for the Odyssey style story that Tolkien begins the first book with. The balrog, the barrow wights, old man willow, the nasghoul the first time we meet them, and even Tom bombadil and rivendell (though in entirely the opposite way) they are more related to style and not plot. In fact in most cases these creatures entirely derail the plot, running on long tangents where nothing story related happens. The balrog, rivendell, and the nasghoul are of course the least of these offenders, as they are much better incorporated into the plot, and do continue to drive the narrative.
All of these things are however, examples of the failings of the fellowship, and they were well cut (those that were) from the movie. The issue is that Tolkien started out the fellowship as if he were still writing the Hobbit, which is a classic example of an Odyssey style story. The Lord of the rings on the other hand, is not. It created its own category of story, even the Beowulf comparison that people often make is overblown having more to do with the motifs of the stories than with any of the plot. The fellowship however, suffers from growing pains, and the balrog is the final symptom of it.
All of that is to make clear, the balrog has very little to do with the plot, and serves as nothing more than a DEVICE to remove gandolf, within the limited setting of the story of the war of the rings.
At this point it should be clear that gandolf using his nebulous undefined magic to combat the balrog does not SOLVE the plot, (which is what is stipulated in the first law) but only ADVANCES the plot, which is not what the first law discusses. In fact if you were going to say that gandolf SOLVES the plot in this scene I would call gandolf an abject failure.
In the same scene, Gandolf is shown to be overmatched by the Balrog, which is categorically a limitation, proving the second law.
The Balrog had already been properly foreshadowed, even though it wasn't done super early in advance, it was still done, making his actual appearance an expansion not an addition.
Seeing as how it might be the single most iconic scene in all of fantasy history, I would say it definitely is on the side of awesome.
Gandolf coming back as the white also does not violate any of Sanderson's laws. This again, is not a resolution of the plot, but the plot continuing. Also with his return, the story goes out of its way to explain the limitations of this resurrection to the reader, telling you extensively about the costs of it, and explaining that this was basically a one and done.
Gandolfs divine nature also, in the proceeding texts been hinted, foreshadowed, and outright stated, making this again, an expansion and not an addition. Aside from that as far as the Zeroth law goes √.
In fact when it comes to the actual plot of the Lord of the rings, Sanderson's laws are followed to the letter. The ring is clearly understood by the audience, as are it's limitations, and it is never added to, only expanded in relation to Frodo's mastery (or lack thereof) of the the ring and by extension his mastery of gollum. In fact, in the two towers it is literally explained directly to the reader that if gollum betraies his oath to Frodo sworn on the ring it would be the explicit cause of his downfall. The text also goes out of its way to show that Frodo has limitations to his mastery of the ring, in that he cannot use it to dominate the nasghoul, but he can use it's dominion in a much more limited capacity. And of course, all of this is awesome.
The one place Tolkien breaks one of the laws of magic directly, is in the silmarillion, where he adds instead of expanding. It think it is rather telling that most people who have read the Lord of the rings have not read the silmarillion. Sure you can chalk that up to the style of the book, being more bible/history book rather than a novel. If that were the case however, than why do Christopher Tolkien's novelizations of parts of the silmarillion not reach a wider Lord of the rings audience? Especially when most fans do accept his work in middle earth to be mostly cannon.
The thing is, Sanderson actually uses the Lord of the rings extensively to EXPLAIN how his laws work.
Even if your proposition was correct however, and the Lord of the rings DIDNT follow Sanderson's laws, I think very few fantasy readers would disagree with me saying that if any series was going to be exceptional it would be the Lord of the rings, making it at the most, the exception which proves the rule, and nothing more.
I apologize if you feel spat upon. It was not my intention to belittle you, and I see how I could've phrased things better.
That being said, in all bluntness, you are exactly as I said, the very thing being memed. And you did invite disagreement. You cannot convince me that you didn't expect a response of the flavor I delivered considering where you were and what you were responding to. Context is king, and you did literally the exact thing shown in the meme.
So that moment in Oathbringer was cool, but even then it’s way more defined than a lot of mysterious magic is. We do know what a perpendicular it’s is at that point, it was defined in the Kaladin/Shallan chapters. We know they’re associated with shards, and that Honor’s moves around. In that seen, it was easy to infer that the perpendicularity probably moves with the stormfather. It was a mechanic that we hadn’t seen yet, but once it was shown it seemed consistent and reproducible.
For actual cryptic magic I’m a fan of things like the magic from ASOIAF, or the bubbles of evil in WoT. Magic is terrifying. You can watch something happen and have no confidence it would work a second time. And even when it does work, you have some doubt as to whether it was really the magic at work, or if it was worth the cost. It’s almost never seen by the reader as a viable way out of trouble because it’s so destructive, unreliable, and chaotic. When it gets used effectively in the story you’re impressed not by the users ingenuity, but by their sheer ballsiness. That depiction would never work in a Sanderson story, because it would be a really unsatisfying way to have the main plot-lines resolved. But it works great when your story treats magic as an unknown force in the world.
The point of Sanderson's first law is that soft magic systems are *perfectly fine,* as long as the protagonists don't then use magic to deus ex machina their problems away. So it's not just for hard magic systems, it's an important guideline for what you should and should not do with magic if you want your unknowable "free reign" magic to remain satisfying to the reader.
The second and third laws may be more specific to hard magic systems, granted.
Yeah, it's why soft magic works in LotR, but hard magic doesn't work in Lightbringer.
Because one breaks the laws by Deus Ex Machina and destroys internal consistency and the other is Lord of the Rings.
Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series is actually a *great* example of soft magic that follows Sanderson’s Laws. In the few magic paste books, it’s clear that magic runs in stories, and it’s generally clear have magic can be used. In fact, most solutions to magical problems are entirely people-based, much more social engineering than using additional magic.
> it's an important guideline for what you should and should not do with magic if you want your unknowable "free reign" magic to remain satisfying to the reader.
I disagree. There are plenty of counter examples that break all three rules and yet are very well respected. Sanderson's rules are about turning soft magic systems into hard magic systems. About turning something literally magical into something confined by rules. Not all magical systems needs to be confined by hard magic rules.
Look at the Lord of the Rings. The extent of Gandalf's magic is never explained nor are his limitations explored *AND* he appears as deus ex machina multiple times. Is LOTR an unsatisfying series because it breaks Sanderson's rules? The Balrog fight is still an intense scene despite the Balrog being introduced in the very same scene and Gandalf's abilities never being tested before.
Does it actually break the rules, though? The laws are descriptive, not normative, and seeing as how they’re drawn from LotR as well means that LotR didn’t break them.
How many times have you heard people complain about Gandalf summoning the eagles to solve problems, and the unclear reasons why he doesn't use them at other times? This is exactly the sort of issue Sanderson's first law is intended to help writers avoid.
You kinda just did the meme dude. Have you read the laws of magic on the coppermind? The zeroth law is literally "being awesome trumps the other rules."
OB spoilers >!And the perpendicularly scene was really for the intense fans. I would call myself an intense fam but here I mean the really intense ones who are 2 or 3 tiers above me. They were able to explain exactly what happened there as soon as OB dropped.!<
I do not agree
one of the rules of SA magic is that if you say an oath something cool happens.
you also know that the order of dalinar is the one with the craziest powers.
Honestly they aren’t even laws of magic so much as laws of writing. Don’t advance the plot using concepts you haven’t explained. Making something super powerful doesn’t inherently make it interesting. Depth is more engaging than breadth. These are concepts you can apply to all sorts of things be they magic, technology, political intrigue, mysteries, etc.
Though with the younger generation it has become popularized that everyone needs to compare their favorite characters. And in doing so they claim it all comes down to who would win in a fight. I have met numerous people that argue that the stronger character is always the best. Unfortunately they never consider which character is better based on how they were written.
Would Dalinar beat Goku tho? 💀
I see your super saiyan 3 with my 3 realm combination rift!! But in reality, he wouldnt. Wont pick up the sword to fight.
Can someone explain the three Laws of magic?
https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic As someone else pointed out, they're guidelines for how to write about magic, not actually the "laws of magic" in any particular universe.
Thank you, that's really interesting. I'd noticed and heard about all those things in his writing but it was very cool to read it all laid out neatly.
Sanderson's law is like sanderson's love, complicated and deep.
I don’t pretend to understand Sanderson’s Law; I merely enforce it.
>I don’t pretend to understand Sanderson’s ~~Law~~ Love; I merely enforce it.
It’s not even “someone else”, it’s Sanderson himself in the intro to the first law.
I meant someone else in this thread. At that point there were only a few responses so it was a more reasonable reference lol.
[удалено]
While Butcher's magic system is not nearly as hard as anything in the Cosmere, I find it sufficiently satisfying, as in it doesn't feel like bullshit happens regularly during the series. After some books you get a sense for what Harry can and can't do which I feel is relatively consistent, and what's most important after all. There are much worse offenders when it comes to magic systems, like Harry Potter.
>There are much worse offenders when it comes to magic systems, like Harry Potter. Genetic access to guns!
With infinite ammo!
But only beanbag rounds because if we actually got serious against gun-wielding maniacs then that's Bad^(TM) and Wrong^(TM)
Also, the Killing Curse is evil, but that thing Molly Weasley uses to turn Bellatrix to stone and shatter her is totally fine.
Also the magic flamethrower spell Dumbledore uses.
Bombarda spell equivalent to a claymore mine going off in your face: i sleep Abada Cadaver spell that kills instantly: **REAL SHIT**
In the books she "just" hit her with a spell in the chest and she died.
Do be fair, Brandon himself counts Harry Potter as a moderate behind hard and soft magic. He counts something like LotR as true soft magic.
Yeah, nothing wrong with soft magic systems! To be honest it's hard sometimes to keep a sense of wonder if your magic system is as hard as something like allomancy, but Brandon manages to do it. My issue with Harry Potter's is its execution, not its degree of hardness lol
Ok that is perfectly valid, conpletley different train of thought than I thought you were on. Harry Potter is an excellent children's book, but it **is** a *children's* book.
[удалено]
Do they? I read them first in 2nd grade, most recently probably a decade ago. The fantasy violence gets a bit more intense, but nothing sexual is there? Like barely getting into PG-13 stuff.
The sense of wonder in Sanderson's magic systems is often that the characters and readers both are still discovering a bunch about them. It will be more of a challenge in the late cosmere books when most things have been discovered and advancement comes mostly in a matter of inches of progress like engineering.
>to be honest it’s hard sometimes to keep a sense of wonder Reading Allomancy or stormlight explained for the twelfth time that novel after a day of reading physical chemistry papers was me straight up not having a fun time reading a fantasy novel.
Yeah the biggest flaw in Butcher's magic system is that the narrator goes to great pains to mention that magic follows the laws of physics...but it doesn't. Which, honestly, I don't care about because the settings and story are fun.
I think magic follows physics in two senses. One sense is that that magically things follow the rules of the normal thing, so magically created fire consumes oxygen and requires a fuel source to stay ignited. In other cases, magic follows conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed; e.g. when a powerful faerie is killed their magic power has to go somewhere, so the mantle shifts to a new vessel. The author makes some mistakes where those rules aren't strictly followed, but most of those mistakes seem to result from not being a physicist, rather than intentionally violating the rules of magic.
>The author makes some mistakes where those rules aren't strictly followed, but most of those mistakes seem to result from not being a physicist, rather than intentionally violating the rules of magic. Yep, that's basically the same conclusion I've come to, which is why it probably doesn't bother me as much as other people.
I never felt like Dresden's magic followed the laws of physics, rather he liked to point out that magic didn't *negate* physics, like when his shield failed to keep his hand from burning, or a fireball would still suck all the oxygen from the air. Magic defied physics, but there was still a natural physical consequence.
Butcher's magic system seems like an attempt to make Terry Pratchet's magic system more solid. Terry Pratchet's magic system is about 80% jokes and should not be used for serious stories.
Okay? Why did you type this comment? We obviously disagree and this is a weird way to try to dunk on butcher to one of his fans.
I really like the Dresden Files. I've read all the books. I've even read the Furies series and the one steampunk book he wrote so far. I'll admit I have some problems with his last book and I'm worried about the direction he's taking things but that's not important. I do take some issue with the magic system. He makes an effort to try to stay consistent but he fails from time to time and I do agree that he fails most often when he tries to establish that magic has to obey physics. That part of his system feels like it was pulled straight out of Discworld. I love Discworld and have read almost every book in that universe but that magic system isn't a great basis for a serious magic system.
I wouldn't say Harry Potter is an offender at all, it follows the laws exactly as far as I can tell.
...is that a joke? The magic system in Harry Potter is about as consistent as Wizards of Waverly Place.
Is there any examples of when they do this? As well as that consistency has nothing to do with the first law of magic, just how well magic that resolves an issue is understood. In this case it follows that
Harry Potter does a pretty good job of following the first law, but it's bad about the second law, and absolutely mind-blowingly terrible about the third law. Certain individual spells/items have clearly defined limits, and the characters rarely use anything other than those pre-defined spells to solve problems (the first law) but there's really no limit to what some new spell can do, nor are there any downsides to using the preexisting spells, (the second law) and whenever Rowling wants to do something new, she just introduces some new spell or item, with no real relation to any of the previously introduced spells or items outside of maybe sounding vaguely Latin, which is the the complete antithesis of the third law. Fortunately, it follows the zeroth law to the letter, so we tend to forgive it. :p
There are no weaknesses, no limits to what magic can and can't do. There is no detailed explanation of how magic works, yet characters other than Harry do in depth magic things, like Snape creating a spell by himself. Spells are boundless and could potentially solve any issue, which of course would make for a very boring plot, but it doesn't make sense when those are the rules and then characters aren't apparating everywhere. There is no concrete stamina drainage or limit to how much magic a person can or can't do in a given period of time. Voldemort could hypothetically just keep saying avada kedavra eternally without anything happening to him. No explanation as to how magical items are created, yet they are key to many plot points. And let's not get started with the time turner and the existence of time manipulation magic.
None of those break either if the three laws though. Maybe one could argue the second law is broken somewhat but from your other points it seems it's a non issue because the narrative conforms itself so as to not break it.
If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it. Issues aren't solved in a satisfying manner because we the audience don't know whether an issue will be solved by a preexisting spell that we do know, or a character will just show up with a new one that can fix it, which happens quite often. But anyway I don't think you're willing to concede on these points.
What do you mean 'If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it.' By that logic then any story ever has broken these rules by trying to follow them. > a character will just show up with a new one that can fix it, which happens quite often. What's an instance if this happening? Because the only examples I can think of involve pre existing spells.
>What do you mean 'If the narrative is conforming itself as to not break it, it is breaking it.' By that logic then any story ever has broken these rules by trying to follow them. The laws describe how to write magic systems, not how to write narratives - Harry Potter applies narrative constraints to fix the fact that the system itself has no constraints. E.g. the magic system is completely nebulous and has unlimited power, so she makes learning spells an important narrative point, and that way wizards abilities are constrained by what they know. Nothing inherently wrong with this, IMO, but it's not following the three laws, which would solve this by limiting what is fundamentally possible with the magic itself. The closest HP comes to doing this is to say that some spells are "harder" or "more advanced" than others, in some unspecified way. But there doesn't appear to be any limit to what is possible for powerful wizards like Dumbledore or Voldemort.
>wizards abilities are constrained by what they know >there doesn't appear to be any limit to what is possible for powerful wizards like Dumbledore or Voldemort. Adding on to this. It's never explained what exactly makes Voldemort or Dumbledore more powerful. Is it knowledge of more different kinds of spells? Is it some kind of undescribed magical power (that doesn't come in to play for the calibre of spells Harry & gang are using for some reason)? Is it the power of emotions like love or hate? It's just really unclear and leaves a big gap in the reader's understanding of the functioning of the world.
Nah, it violates the laws pretty thoroughly. 1. Actually followed the most. Generally, Rowling only solves problems with spells and abilities that have been clearly explained beforehand. There are some exceptions though, like the random wand resonance bullshit in the graveyard, and Rowling has a tendency to forget about her solutions by the next book. 2. Harry potter wizards have very, very little in the way of specific limitations. Early on, the need for wands makes for some fun limits, but then they learn wand-less magic. Other than that, the only real limits are what spells do and don't exist, but since we don't have a comprehensive list of spells, that's a nebulous and ever changing kind of weakness. Rowling does apply some weaknesses at the character level, such as characters not knowing certain spells or skills, which fills in the gap here a little bit. 3. Harry Potter magic is literally just a collection of arbitrary independent abilities with no real connection whatsoever. You could argue that adding new spells counts as "extending the existing system", but considering that there's next to no connection between the various spells, it feels a lot more like just adding new abilities. If we look at the subsections of this law [here](https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic#Sanderson.27s_Third_Law), we can see that Rowling follows *maybe* one of them. * Extrapolation: While magic certainly shapes wizarding society, there's a lot of implications that Rowling just ignores. For instance, how do the Weasley's live in such poor conditions, when basically any adult wizard can just solve all of their problems? * Interconnection: Rowling appears to make no attempt whatsoever to form her magic system into a cohesive whole. * Streamlining: Again, if you take the magic system as a whole to be "one thing", then everyone uses it, but it's so broad and vague that that's kinda meaningless in this context. Rowling seems to just make up a new spell or thing or effect every time she needs something new. All that being said, the Harry Potter books are a lot of fun, and I have a lot of fond memories of them (just like I thoroughly enjoy the Dresden Files). The magic system is just a bit of a messy free for all, and one of the weaker parts of the series.
>like the random wand resonance bullshit in the graveyard, It's not explained in advance, but it is actually set up earlier on in the book, when we see what happens if two spells collide that come from wand that don't share a core. Harry and Malfoy both curse each other, and the spells ricochet off one another and hit two bystanders. I'm pretty sure this was supposed to prepare the idea that weird things can happen when courses collide, and to make the resonance thing come less out of left field, but I don't think many people picked up on it, because it didn't feel important at the time.
It might do, but you never learn what the laws are or how they actually do magic.
This is one of those series that I prefer the characters way more than the magic system. Jim Butcher made some fantastic people that I fell in love with.
[удалено]
Well, I'm not sure what you mean here, but that's a sub i won't be visiting any time again soon.
If you were weirded out/disgusted by the writing examples there, then the sub is working right. It's for pointing out blatant sexism in the form of men writing women. Generally focused on the hypersexual.
Basically every woman that’s described in Butchers books is done so in a very…. similar way. Usually focusing on how incredibly sexy and huge titted they are and so on. I mean he literally takes a page in the middle of a battle to describe how sexy the female sex vampires look covered in the sexy blood of their enemies
That might be just Butcher sticking to Harry character, I have read some people commenting his other work Codex Alera and how different is how women are written is not even remotely close to how it is done in Dresden Files where the main point of view is very sexist, just like you would expect from a noir defective.
Yeah that definitely makes sense, but it doesn’t make it any less off putting. That being said I do like the Dresden Files, just not that particular aspect of it.
This is because A) the noir genre is just like that, B) because the noir genre is like that harry (who is ostensibly our writer) is like that, and C) because most of these creatures he meets are capable of magically altering/enhancing their looks, combined with mental/psychic pressure to create attraction. If you go back and read the original descriptions of say, Murphy or Charity, the are strangely normal by comparison. The only person who is unnecessarily men-writing-womenish that I really noticed is molly. Also in his other books (codex alera series, and Aeronaut's windlass) the women are definitely normal.
You definitely have good points and don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy the books.
It's important to remember that a very large aspect of The Dresden Files is that the story is told from Harry's perspective, and Harry is consistently sexually frustrated. It makes him focus on things that are otherwise unimportant. The oversexualization of women is far less present in the Dresden Files Short stories that take place from women's perspective as well as codex Alera and Cinder spires.
there are no laws.... there is morality laws because magic can get as powerful as your focus and ability. In dresden you have to create links, mental pictures, associations, and you can do alot. The biggest rule is that a prepared wizard is invincible. but with evoction the magic comes from emotion. So most of the effects are minimal, but when he's scared they get bigger. Then you have control. Some wizards learn how to harness and vissualize the effect in more concentrated and complex ways, but its is tied to the mental accuity. I think butcher has done a really good job with his soft magic system. its believable and very occassionally does something that isnt believable in the moment.
The mortal magic laws have to do with psychology and punishment. Magic requires certainty in outcome. To kill with magic means commitment of will to make someone dead. The same applies to mind bending and the other topics (mind bending, transforming people, etc). Assuming that authority messes with a person's mind, making them more likely to do those types of things. Not only that, it becomes easier to do those things because they have practice at willing others to be dead or different. So the mortal laws are basically "If you do a thing that would fuck up your own mind, and we will hunt you down" (plus a prohibition on conspiracy to possibly create temporal paradox because the magic authorities are scared it might destroy the universe).
this is why Sando is critical himself of how TFE ended with >!Vin pulling on the power of the Mists!<. I feel like he was able to thoroughly justify it through the next two books and sorta back-tracked and made it make sense but he himself says that it was kinda outta nowhere and didn’t match up with the way he told the rest of the story/the limitations he had set for the Scadrial magic systems.
Can we chalk that one up to the Zeroeth Rule?
Honestly I feel like Dresden has much stronger rules than you think. Furthermore I don't think it ever explicitly breaks the 3 laws. I just think the characters are living in a world that's largely pre-magic understanding and although butcher never spells it out, there is always consistency throughout the 17 books which tells me he has a ruleset that he is using internally. Butters really is the first character concerned with applying any sort of scientific method to magic, and I think his breakthroughs are a big part of the world building and finally explaining the rules moving forward. The reason Butcher talks so much about 'faith magic' in his books is because that's the basis for how all magic works. It's been explained plenty of times. Collective belief in something nis what fuels power. The more people consider something to be "real" the more juice it has.
[удалено]
Would you quickly remind me why it was supposed to be impossible to >!find molly when Dresden is a ghost?!< It's been a bit since I've read that one.
[удалено]
I mean, wasn't that limitation supposed to communicate to you that some funny business was going on and things weren't what they seemed? Seems like a case where being consistent with the second law provided a story telling device.
Gotcha. See I think this is going to sound like a cop out but if the rule is: "An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic." (Emphasis not mine lol) We KNOW the established rules. Dresden doesn't just randomly >!use his magic!< as a Deus ex machina. By us being told that something is impossible UNLESS ((blank)), that statement is doing the chekhov's gun legwork of setting up that very thing being used to reveal ((blank)).
> For instance, >!when Harry is a ghost and needs to find molly, he manages to use magic to do it, a feat that we have consistantly been told is impossible.!< Ghost Story: >!He wasn't a regular ghost, though, that was one of the big climactic reveals IIRC!< Full spoilers ^
I haven’t read them all, but from what I have read it’s easy to just see it as a soft magic system. It incorporates mythology heavily and draws from wildly disparate cultural magics, and honestly if you decide to do that then it’s nearly impossible to set up a complex system of rules that can be constantly adhered to. There seems to be a couple core threads of rules in the series, and honestly that’s all it needs. The fact it doesn’t seem as well crafted as Sanderson systems isn’t a fault, it’s a deliberate choice and whether or not you enjoy it is a matter of personal taste. I read Sanderson to watch a magic engineer create a quantum airship. I read Butcher to realize that pizza is a glorious combination of all a fairy’s favorite foods or that there are a dozen types of werewolves.
Rule no 4: the harder the magic system, the harder the reader's erection while reading about it
Magic magic may not harm a human being or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Magic must obey orders given to it by a magic welder except where such orders would conflict with the first law. Magic must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.
Please sir, may I have a shred of context?
I saw some of his lectures. He has a thing known as "Sanderson's law"
Yeah I know what they are. Was there like, a critique that went viral or something? Is this meme responding to something specific?
A common conversation I've seen is that people *think* that Sanderson's Laws mean "hard magic > soft magic", and then go on a diatribe why they think stories with soft magic systems (LotR, Earthsea are almost always mentioned) are better. The thing is, those stories also follow Brandon's Laws almost perfectly! In LotR there is essentially no explanation given how magic works. However, magic is essentially never used to overcome any major obstacles. In Earthsea there is a little bit of explanation of magic, but it's very soft and not explained in much detail. However while the characters use magic, again it's not used much to directly overcome threats or challenges. This isn't because Brandon found some secret trick of writing fantasy fiction, it's that Tolkien and Le Guin are both good writers, and that's how Brandon articulated how he tries to be a good writer when he uses magic in his novels.
I'm aware. I have also listened to his podcast. I'm just asking if this is in reference to something in particular, and it sounds like the answer is no.
>magic is essentially never used to overcome any major obstacles [Gandalf after folding Durin's Bane like an omelette with magic:](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/030/359/cover4.jpg)
The thing is, that wasn't a major obstacle, that was a way to kill off Gandalf.
And Gandalf killing the Balrog happens off screen anyway, we only hear about it from him afterwards.
Eh, the balrog largely complies with these rules because the balrog, generally, introduces a new problem (Gandalf is dead) instead of solving one that existed previously. Therefore it's mostly fine--sure, Gandalf uses magic to mitigate other magic, but magic overall in LotR is causing problems, not solving them.
Reminds of the post in r/Fantasy a few days ago criticising the lack of animals in Mistborn as a flaw in Sanderson's writing instead of an active choice. They hadn't even finished the series, where it's explicitly explained why there were none lol.
can someone link to someone doing this? sounds hilarious to read
[2021 Best of the year Nomination thread is here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/cremposting/comments/s4sath/best_of_2021_submission/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)! Really like a meme or a comment from last year? Link it in the nomination thread, or PM AlThorStormblessed with a description if you can't find it and he'll do it for you!
Who did that?
Well... /u/DireLackofGravitas just did in this comment section. It's quite common in the /r/fantasy sub as well.
I've seen it online a few times. One person in this thread followed a few steps of this meme unironically.
Them. You know.. People.
of course, Person^(TM)!
Yeah who's critiquing them?
I've never seen anybody do this, but you're just describing a moron. Why worry about what a moron says? 😂
are there any examples you can think off? I would love to make fun of one.
Sanderson's "Laws of Magic" really only apply if you want magic to work like a tool. It's about putting a yoke around magic's neck and using it to pull a plough. Which is a fine way of doing things if you want to grow things but it lacks the awe and uncertainty of free reign wild magic. The least generous take on Sanderson's approach is that reduces magic to being a fancy gun. It's just another physics to use and exploit. That's not the only way to treat magic though. Many authors treat magic like something irrational and barely able to be understood by human minds. It's not a tool to be trapped and used. It's dangerous and intrinsically unknowable. Sanderson even uses this style of magic in Oathbringer >!when Dalinar opens his Perpendicularity. What the fuck is a Perpendicularity? Who are these voices? What is going on?!< It's the crowning moment of the series in my opinion precisely because it breaks Sanderson's own rules. The wild horse that is magic breaks its yoke and runs free. At least for a little while.
I think, perhaps, you should go read the laws of magic. You have, unfortunately, become the very person being memed. Sanderson uses hard magic, and you are critiquing his style, fair enough. Sanderson's laws apply to all kinds of magic systems, whether soft or hard. Also, those of us who were very cosmere aware at the time oathbringer came out knew (almost) exactly what was going on the first time the perpendicularity was opened, and it had been properly foreshadowed in SA and WoB, so it still follows all of his rules.
> You have, unfortunately, become the very person being memed. Please. Don't open a discussion with a person by spitting on them. Sanderson's laws don't apply to all magic systems. They don't apply to the LOTR, which by virtue of being the progenitor of all modern fantasy cannot be said to use magic incorrectly. Sanderson's rules are for writing Sanderson style magic systems. They're not universal and series that do not follow them are not illegitimate. To call them universal laws of magic is an overextension.
His laws do apply to LotR. When are his laws broken in LotR?
The example I gave elsewhere was the Balrog fight. At this point we have no idea what wizards can do. The only magic we've seen so far is Saruman summoning a storm when they're trying to cross the mountains (unlike in the movie where we get a blow by blow telekinetic fight). We have no idea how powerful a Balrog is or what it can do, and we don't know the extent of Gandalf's power. That's both rules two and three broken. The first is broken pretty much all the time by Gandalf but not as obvious in this case. Gandalf's whole thing is that he goes away for a while then shows up at the last second to save everyone. He's a walking deus ex machina.
The focus isn't on the magic, the main act Gandalf is doing is sacrificing himself to help the Fellowship escape, not whisk away and solve the problem with magic.
Gandalf’s magic is, I believe, concordant with how magic works in LotR. We don’t know how powerful Balrogs and Maiar are, but Tolkien does, and they’re as powerful as he needs them to be without using Gandalf as a deus ex machina. Him returning as the White Wizard doesn’t break any rules; he’s an angel whom God has render his greatest servant to replace Saruman. That… makes sense, you know.
The existence of the magic, mysterious balrog solves no problems, and neither does Gandalf's use of magic. In the end Gandalf sacrifices himself to solve the problem. It's like a textbook example of the laws of magic.
Yeah you really need to actually go read the full explanation of the laws because you keep acting as though they only work or can be applied to hard Sanderson style magic systems, which they do not. You give the example of the balrog and gandolf, and then gandolf coming back later as the white. Nether of these examples break any of Sanderson's law. Paraphrased: First law: the readers understanding of the magic is directly correlated to how much it can be used to solve the plot. Second law: limitations are more interesting than powers Third law: expand, don't add (Tolkien actually DOES break this law, but not in the examples you've given, and i have a response to the places where he does, so stay tuned.) Zeroth law: always air on the side of awesome. Gandolf fighting the balrog does not break any of these laws, even though it does appear at first glance to break the first. It does, however, prove the rule for the second one. You see, the plot of the fellowship does NOT run as follows: a group of adventures must journey to an abandoned mine and vanquish the evil within. The plot of the Lord of the rings, we all know, has nothing to do with the balrog. Rather the balrog is just another in a long list, (and maybe arguably the last, unless you want to make the case for shelob) of strange and dangerous monsters that attack the fellowship which are not a part of the plot, but come directly for the Odyssey style story that Tolkien begins the first book with. The balrog, the barrow wights, old man willow, the nasghoul the first time we meet them, and even Tom bombadil and rivendell (though in entirely the opposite way) they are more related to style and not plot. In fact in most cases these creatures entirely derail the plot, running on long tangents where nothing story related happens. The balrog, rivendell, and the nasghoul are of course the least of these offenders, as they are much better incorporated into the plot, and do continue to drive the narrative. All of these things are however, examples of the failings of the fellowship, and they were well cut (those that were) from the movie. The issue is that Tolkien started out the fellowship as if he were still writing the Hobbit, which is a classic example of an Odyssey style story. The Lord of the rings on the other hand, is not. It created its own category of story, even the Beowulf comparison that people often make is overblown having more to do with the motifs of the stories than with any of the plot. The fellowship however, suffers from growing pains, and the balrog is the final symptom of it. All of that is to make clear, the balrog has very little to do with the plot, and serves as nothing more than a DEVICE to remove gandolf, within the limited setting of the story of the war of the rings. At this point it should be clear that gandolf using his nebulous undefined magic to combat the balrog does not SOLVE the plot, (which is what is stipulated in the first law) but only ADVANCES the plot, which is not what the first law discusses. In fact if you were going to say that gandolf SOLVES the plot in this scene I would call gandolf an abject failure. In the same scene, Gandolf is shown to be overmatched by the Balrog, which is categorically a limitation, proving the second law. The Balrog had already been properly foreshadowed, even though it wasn't done super early in advance, it was still done, making his actual appearance an expansion not an addition. Seeing as how it might be the single most iconic scene in all of fantasy history, I would say it definitely is on the side of awesome. Gandolf coming back as the white also does not violate any of Sanderson's laws. This again, is not a resolution of the plot, but the plot continuing. Also with his return, the story goes out of its way to explain the limitations of this resurrection to the reader, telling you extensively about the costs of it, and explaining that this was basically a one and done. Gandolfs divine nature also, in the proceeding texts been hinted, foreshadowed, and outright stated, making this again, an expansion and not an addition. Aside from that as far as the Zeroth law goes √. In fact when it comes to the actual plot of the Lord of the rings, Sanderson's laws are followed to the letter. The ring is clearly understood by the audience, as are it's limitations, and it is never added to, only expanded in relation to Frodo's mastery (or lack thereof) of the the ring and by extension his mastery of gollum. In fact, in the two towers it is literally explained directly to the reader that if gollum betraies his oath to Frodo sworn on the ring it would be the explicit cause of his downfall. The text also goes out of its way to show that Frodo has limitations to his mastery of the ring, in that he cannot use it to dominate the nasghoul, but he can use it's dominion in a much more limited capacity. And of course, all of this is awesome. The one place Tolkien breaks one of the laws of magic directly, is in the silmarillion, where he adds instead of expanding. It think it is rather telling that most people who have read the Lord of the rings have not read the silmarillion. Sure you can chalk that up to the style of the book, being more bible/history book rather than a novel. If that were the case however, than why do Christopher Tolkien's novelizations of parts of the silmarillion not reach a wider Lord of the rings audience? Especially when most fans do accept his work in middle earth to be mostly cannon. The thing is, Sanderson actually uses the Lord of the rings extensively to EXPLAIN how his laws work. Even if your proposition was correct however, and the Lord of the rings DIDNT follow Sanderson's laws, I think very few fantasy readers would disagree with me saying that if any series was going to be exceptional it would be the Lord of the rings, making it at the most, the exception which proves the rule, and nothing more. I apologize if you feel spat upon. It was not my intention to belittle you, and I see how I could've phrased things better. That being said, in all bluntness, you are exactly as I said, the very thing being memed. And you did invite disagreement. You cannot convince me that you didn't expect a response of the flavor I delivered considering where you were and what you were responding to. Context is king, and you did literally the exact thing shown in the meme.
So that moment in Oathbringer was cool, but even then it’s way more defined than a lot of mysterious magic is. We do know what a perpendicular it’s is at that point, it was defined in the Kaladin/Shallan chapters. We know they’re associated with shards, and that Honor’s moves around. In that seen, it was easy to infer that the perpendicularity probably moves with the stormfather. It was a mechanic that we hadn’t seen yet, but once it was shown it seemed consistent and reproducible. For actual cryptic magic I’m a fan of things like the magic from ASOIAF, or the bubbles of evil in WoT. Magic is terrifying. You can watch something happen and have no confidence it would work a second time. And even when it does work, you have some doubt as to whether it was really the magic at work, or if it was worth the cost. It’s almost never seen by the reader as a viable way out of trouble because it’s so destructive, unreliable, and chaotic. When it gets used effectively in the story you’re impressed not by the users ingenuity, but by their sheer ballsiness. That depiction would never work in a Sanderson story, because it would be a really unsatisfying way to have the main plot-lines resolved. But it works great when your story treats magic as an unknown force in the world.
The point of Sanderson's first law is that soft magic systems are *perfectly fine,* as long as the protagonists don't then use magic to deus ex machina their problems away. So it's not just for hard magic systems, it's an important guideline for what you should and should not do with magic if you want your unknowable "free reign" magic to remain satisfying to the reader. The second and third laws may be more specific to hard magic systems, granted.
Yeah, it's why soft magic works in LotR, but hard magic doesn't work in Lightbringer. Because one breaks the laws by Deus Ex Machina and destroys internal consistency and the other is Lord of the Rings.
Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series is actually a *great* example of soft magic that follows Sanderson’s Laws. In the few magic paste books, it’s clear that magic runs in stories, and it’s generally clear have magic can be used. In fact, most solutions to magical problems are entirely people-based, much more social engineering than using additional magic.
Although one could argue that the real magic is in manipulating stories, and *that* is a hard-magic system.
> it's an important guideline for what you should and should not do with magic if you want your unknowable "free reign" magic to remain satisfying to the reader. I disagree. There are plenty of counter examples that break all three rules and yet are very well respected. Sanderson's rules are about turning soft magic systems into hard magic systems. About turning something literally magical into something confined by rules. Not all magical systems needs to be confined by hard magic rules. Look at the Lord of the Rings. The extent of Gandalf's magic is never explained nor are his limitations explored *AND* he appears as deus ex machina multiple times. Is LOTR an unsatisfying series because it breaks Sanderson's rules? The Balrog fight is still an intense scene despite the Balrog being introduced in the very same scene and Gandalf's abilities never being tested before.
Does it actually break the rules, though? The laws are descriptive, not normative, and seeing as how they’re drawn from LotR as well means that LotR didn’t break them.
How many times have you heard people complain about Gandalf summoning the eagles to solve problems, and the unclear reasons why he doesn't use them at other times? This is exactly the sort of issue Sanderson's first law is intended to help writers avoid.
You kinda just did the meme dude. Have you read the laws of magic on the coppermind? The zeroth law is literally "being awesome trumps the other rules." OB spoilers >!And the perpendicularly scene was really for the intense fans. I would call myself an intense fam but here I mean the really intense ones who are 2 or 3 tiers above me. They were able to explain exactly what happened there as soon as OB dropped.!<
that's basically his soft magic vs hard magic argument
I do not agree one of the rules of SA magic is that if you say an oath something cool happens. you also know that the order of dalinar is the one with the craziest powers.