AllenStroud wrote:From a quick read of the article, I would say it puts me in a place reconciling a system into fiction as it might any writer I guess.
I pretty much disagree with Sanderson on most of his conclusions. Its unfortunately common for writers to project their own way of working into a theory of how everything works. Even when he 'modifies' his structural model, he's still linking two relative concepts, namely, understanding and application. There's precious little research in evidence as well. Formative thinking (how stuff works, what is its affect) is much more useful than trying to rope a herd of cows with one piece of rope. His explanation denies the fundamental use of myth and invented myth in fiction i.e. how you invoke the reader's imagination without explaining and still goes against the use of wonder.
Clarke's Law on magic and technology is much more applicable as it doesn't try to tell a writer how to write.
For The Death of Gods (Chaos Reborn Fiction), I try to invoke the referential code (Barthes) and ensure magic is something you identify with as readers. Uses of magic need to feel familiar to the way in which you play the game, but it shouldn't be restricted by it once this familiarity is established. My wizards achieve feats wizards in the game cannot achieve (initially or otherwise) and by not determining the difference specifically, but allowing you to determine it, they hold aspirational positions in the whole fictional entity (game and book). I have tried to use myth and mythopoesis (Tolkien, Warner, Zipes, Bettelheim) and the megatext of Fantasy (Brooke-Rose, Broderick) to construct something you will enjoy.
Only you can decide if I've succeeded or not when the book and game come out.
Nevertheless, every time I read a Sanderson book and get the basic premise of his magical constructions, I'm wondering how this will be engaging and "cool". Yet, at the end of each book, I loved what he did with any magic system he has invented.
Everyone has different ideas on magic, but I do agree with his idea that if magic can do whatever, whenever, it isn't really all that wondrous and then it just becomes a scapegoat to get something done.
When you set the rules and define them up front and don't randomly go outside the bounds of them, the characters then have to find ways to cope with their situations within the bounds of that magic.
It feels more realistic, more complete and more engaging when you know the boundaries.
Like he said about Harry Potter, Rowling conveniently forgets things that has happened in the past and that is something I see in a lot of stories where something that happened in the past isn't built upon in future writings just so they continue to develop the world and do new things. When I see stuff like this happen, I get disinterested in the world when things are forgotten or conveniently dismissed/overlooked or when anything can happen to fit the situation, making the magic just a way to beat the bad guy without any effort involved.
Maybe that's why I like Jordan and Sanderson so much, and a lot of people I've talked to don't care for their styles.